Gujarat HC Orders Car Seized In Liquor Case Returned To Owner, Says Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki four-wheeler bearing registration No. RJ-23-CC-5327, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an alleged liquor-prohibition offence.

The petitioner’s application for release was rejected by the 3rd Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, on 10 June 2026.

He then invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, arguing that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

The State opposed release by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to direct the release of seized property in an appropriate case.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and that courts may release them on suitable bonds, guarantees and security, while requiring their production when needed.

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, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle; the court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the BNSS).

The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and that keeping the vehicle in custody risked deterioration.

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved through appropriate safeguards.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent 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 panchnama before release.

The petitioner was also directed to furnish photographs and a panchnama of the vehicle for the charge-sheet papers, and the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial.

The Court further directed that, in the event of a subsequent offence, the vehicle would stand confiscated.