Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Liquor-Seizure Truck, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar to Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Tata truck, registration No. GJ-03-AX-8786, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Limbdi Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security for their production when required

In M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act 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 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227

Applying these authorities, the Court held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release of the truck.

Keeping it at the police station risked deterioration, while conditions could secure its preservation and production during trial.

The Court therefore allowed release against a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until trial concludes, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

It also required police photographs and a panchnama, and directed that the order be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer

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

Because the vehicle was hypothecated, the petitioner was required to provide the original NOC to the Registry within the stated period; the writ was to issue only after its receipt.

Rule was made absolute