Gujarat HC Orders Bolero Seized With Liquor Released On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police seized the petitioner’s Mahindra Bolero Pick Up, registration No. GJ-20-V-6289, after allegedly finding liquor in the vehicle without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Dhanpur Police Station for offences under Sections 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, and his revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.

He then sought release before the High Court, submitting that the vehicle risked deterioration while in custody and producing the financier’s no-objection certificate.

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution provide the High Court with jurisdiction to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee and security.

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

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 and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, it found that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release and that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

The Court therefore considered release appropriate, subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, ensuring its production when required, and addressing any subsequent offence.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s expense and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.