Gujarat HC Orders Bolero Seized In Liquor Case Released On Vehicle-Value Surety, Citing No Absolute Bar Under Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Provision

Police intercepted a Mahindra Bolero, registration No. GJ-13-W-2250, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and registered an FIR at Ranavav Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) enables a court to make orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

The coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, was also cited in support of release under Articles 226 and 227.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the vehicle’s seizure under the Prohibition Act did not prevent its interim release.

The Supreme Court’s guidance against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate, together with M/s ABC Express’s interpretation of Section 98(2), supported release subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer.

The Court therefore directed release upon a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.