Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized rickshaw despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the rickshaw was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing 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 Court further directed that a subsequent offence would result in confiscation; that the police photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers; and that the order be sent to the RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted rickshaw No. GJ-10-T-5784 after receiving secret information that it was carrying liquor.

p. 1

The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Bhayavadar Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

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

p. 1

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized rickshaw despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the rickshaw should be released to the petitioner, and, if so, on what safeguards and conditions.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

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

pp. 1, 3–4

Section 497 of the BNSS concerns interim custody of property; the Court referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as its corresponding provision.

pp. 1, 3–4

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, as held in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

p. 3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court advised against leaving seized vehicles unattended and supported their timely release subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–3

The Court also relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The Court considered the risk that prolonged retention at a police station would cause the rickshaw to deteriorate, as well as the petitioner’s request for its release.

pp. 2–3

It concluded that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not absolutely prevent interim custody and that the Court could order proper custody under the applicable procedural power.

p. 3

Relying also on the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, the Court granted release subject to conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production, and address any subsequent offence.

pp. 2, 4–5