Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Renault Kwid Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or other concerned authority was directed to release the Renault Kwid upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal 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.

It also directed

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

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers; the order must also be sent to the RTO for a register entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of his Renault Kwid, registration No. GJ-05-RC-8666, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

¶ 1–2 · p. 1

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

¶ 1–2 · p. 1

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

¶ 1–2 · p. 1

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and tendered an NOC; the State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

¶ 4–5 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

¶ 5, 8 · pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the vehicle could be released subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preventing its transfer pending trial.

¶ 7, 10–12 · pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate, and Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property during an inquiry or trial.

¶ 1, 5, 8 · pp. 1, 2–3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not remain unattended at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

¶ 7 · pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a coordinate Bench ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

¶ 6 · p. 3

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which 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.

¶ 8 · p. 3

Provisions 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 Supreme Court’s guidance against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody, the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat, and the recent ruling in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on interim release.

¶ 6–8 · p. 3

The State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions therefore did not prevent release.

¶ 9–12 · pp. 3–4

The Court allowed release while imposing conditions intended to preserve the vehicle, secure its production, and prevent its transfer during trial.

¶ 9–12 · pp. 3–4