Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Creta Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hyundai Creta seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(e), 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its interim release.

The Magistrate rejected his application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the vehicle could deteriorate if kept in police custody.

The Court relied on Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, which empower the Court to make appropriate orders concerning the custody of property pending trial.

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

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

It 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 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that the Court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the vehicle had been seized in connection with the pending prohibition case.

Applying Sunderbhai, the Court considered the risk that continued retention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) did not operate as an absolute bar to interim release.

The Court therefore found that release was appropriate, provided conditions protected the vehicle’s availability and addressed its future use.

The Court further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; that police take photographs and prepare a panchnama before release, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; and that the order be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.