Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Scooter Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

Police seized the petitioner’s Maruti Suzuki Access 125 scooter, registration No. GJ-16-DD-6888, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the JMFC, Ankleshwar, and her revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

She asserted that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a bank no-objection certificate confirming no outstanding dues and permitting release.

The State opposed release by referring to the confiscation provisions of the Act but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which discourages prolonged retention of seized vehicles at police stations and supports their interim release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

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, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and noted the bank’s no-objection certificate.

Having regard to the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody, the Court applied the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express and concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release.

It therefore ordered release subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required.

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; the panchnama and photographs were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any order of the trial court permitting transfer.