01Facts
Police intercepted a Mahindra Bolero, registration No. GJ-20-V-9915, on secret information that it was carrying liquor.
p. 2The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Halol Town Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 2The 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; a copy of the original NOC was also placed on record.
p. 1The State opposed release by relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.
p. 202Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
pp. 1–2Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property during inquiry or trial; the Court referred to its CrPC counterpart, Section 451.
pp. 1, 3–4In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.
p. 3The Court 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order appropriate custody under Section 451 CrPC.
p. 4It additionally noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The Court considered the State’s objection based on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions alongside the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on interim release.
p. 2, 4Applying the principle that vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate, and finding that release could be safeguarded by conditions, the Court directed release against security and undertakings designed to preserve the vehicle’s availability for trial.
pp. 3–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the concerned Trial Court or authority was directed to release the Bolero upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
p. 4A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
SHETANBHAI ZITHRABHAI GUNDIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
