Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Car Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted a Ford Fiesta, registration No. GJ-01-KL-3063, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Bapod Police Station 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 objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including orders concerning interim custody of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Supreme Court in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and does not prevent a court from exercising its power under Section 451 CrPC to make custody orders.

The Court also referred to 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.

The Court considered the alleged use of the vehicle in a prohibition offence alongside the risk that keeping it in police custody would cause deterioration. Relying on Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provision did not constitute an absolute bar to interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved through conditions securing its production and preventing its transfer.

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

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides, at the petitioner’s expense, and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer. The Rule was made absolute.