Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Interim Release Of Hyundai Verna Seized On Liquor-Carrying Allegation, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Law Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner sought release of his Hyundai Verna CRDI, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Tilakwada Police Station, Narmada, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the risk of the vehicle deteriorating in police custody and on the decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging that the High Court could order release.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to direct release of seized property in an appropriate case, and the Court also referred to its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 497 of the BNSS.

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 at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required.

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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

It further noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release in an analogous case.

The Court considered the risk that continued police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate, consistent with the concern identified in Sunderbhai.

It then applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) does not absolutely preclude interim release, and noted the analogous approach in Musa Khan Jat.

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its availability for trial.

The order also provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer; the Rule was made absolute.