Gujarat HC Orders Car Seized In Liquor Case Released To Registered Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift Dzire, sought its release from police custody after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Police had intercepted the vehicle on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Savarkundla Rural Police Station.

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

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 interim custody of property during an inquiry or trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, as held by the Supreme Court in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court emphasized that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate in police stations and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle by exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the petitioner’s claim as registered owner alongside the State’s objection based on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

Relying on M/s ABC Express, it held that Section 98(2) does not absolutely prevent interim release, and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai supported avoiding prolonged retention and deterioration of the vehicle.

The Court therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it also required photographs and a panchanama to preserve evidence.

The petitioner must furnish the required surety, undertake not to transfer the vehicle until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the vehicle is to stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

The police must photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchanama, and the order is to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.