Gujarat HC Orders Bajaj RE Seized In Liquor Case Released To Registered Owner Pending Trial, Against Surety And Transfer Ban

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until conclusion of the trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence; required police photographs and a panchnama before release; and directed the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of a Bajaj RE CNG vehicle seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 2 · ¶ 2–3

The petitioner claimed to be the vehicle’s registered owner and produced a financier’s letter and Form No. 35 recording termination of the hire-purchase agreement.

p. 2 · ¶ 5

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order release.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 9

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner, and, if so, on what conditions.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–13

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate in police custody, and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).

p. 4 · ¶ 9

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, as an analogous instance of release under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release and that continued police custody risked deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 5, 9–13

The petitioner’s ownership claim and the material concerning termination of the hire-purchase agreement supported release, subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 5, 9–13