Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Interim Release Of Car Seized In Liquor Case To Registered Owner, Citing SC Ruling Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Swift VXI, sought its release after it was seized in connection with a prohibition offence.

Police alleged that the vehicle’s driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Changodar Police Station.

The vehicle was financed by IndusInd Bank Limited, which had issued a no-objection certificate permitting its release to the petitioner.

The State objected by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, but did not dispute that the Court could order release under Article 226.

The Court considered Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as provisions supporting the Court’s authority to order custody or release of seized property.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it applied the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that the Court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

The petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s no-objection certificate supported release in his favour.

The Court considered the risk of deterioration if the vehicle remained in police custody and held, consistently with the cited Supreme Court authority, that the prohibition statute did not impose an absolute bar to interim release.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

Photographs and a panchanama were also required to preserve evidence.

The petitioner must not transfer it pending trial, must produce it when directed, and the order provides for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurs.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama; the order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any further order of the Trial Court.