01Facts
Police intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Alto 800 allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered C.R. No. 11822009260656 of 2025 with Chikhli Police Station, Navsari, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5The vehicle was seized.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5Its petitioner-owner sought release, relying on the Supreme Court’s directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and producing a no-objection certificate from the finance company.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order release.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–502Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–8ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions pending trial.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–1103Law Applied
Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution confer constitutional and supervisory powers that may be exercised to order release of seized property.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4, 6–8Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4, 6–8In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4, 6–8The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, the latter holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4, 6–8Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the vehicle’s continued detention risked deterioration and that the power to order interim custody was not excluded by Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–11Applying the authorities on interim release and proper custody, it concluded that the vehicle could be returned subject to safeguards preserving its availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–1105Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal 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.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13The order further provided that a subsequent offence would result in confiscation.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost; these must form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13A copy of the order must be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Rule was made absolute.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Original Court PDF
VINODBHAI LALJIBHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
