Gujarat HC Orders Burgman Seized In Liquor Case Released, Says Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Provision Is Not An Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, with both forming part of the charge-sheet papers. The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court. Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Burgman Street scooter, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81 and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, following the discovery of liquor in the vehicle.

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

p. 2

The petitioner relied on the risk of the vehicle deteriorating in police custody and produced a bank no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2

He then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions pending trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

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 provides for orders regarding the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

p. 1

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against keeping seized vehicles in police stations where they may deteriorate and supports their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

p. 3

It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 BNSS).

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98 Section 81 Section 83

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk that continued storage at the police station would cause deterioration.

p. 2, 4

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interaction between interim custody and Section 98(2), the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent release pending trial.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to secure the vehicle’s availability and prevent its transfer.

p. 5