Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Auto-Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police intercepted an auto-rickshaw, registration No. GJ-03-BU-7377, after receiving secret information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at DCB Police Station, Rajkot, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that this Court could order release in an appropriate case.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left unused at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security, subject to their return when required.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court released a vehicle in an analogous case.

The Court cited M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule 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 its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on the need to prevent seized vehicles from deteriorating in police custody, as recognized in Sunderbhai, and the analogous release ordered in Musa Khan Jat.

It also applied M/s ABC Express to reject the proposition that the confiscation provision necessarily barred interim release.

In light of the Court’s power to provide for proper custody, it ordered release subject to safeguards intended to preserve the vehicle’s availability and prevent its transfer pending trial.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court.