01Facts
Police seized an Access 125 DISC BT Suzuki scooter, registration No. GJ-01-VW-9813, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2An FIR was registered under provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Magistrate, and his criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court.
pp. 1–2The petitioner relied on the vehicle’s deterioration while in custody, a finance company’s no-objection certificate, and no-objection certificates from his mother and son, together with a pedigree document, in support of his claim to the vehicle.
p. 2He sought release under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
p. 102Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 3–5ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on appropriate conditions to prevent its deterioration and secure its production for trial.
pp. 2, 5–603Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property.
Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.
In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.
p. 4The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 4It further applied the Supreme Court’s decision in 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 of a seized vehicle and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.
pp. 4–5Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65Section 81Section 83Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and had produced the finance company’s NOC, as well as NOCs from his mother and son.
pp. 2–3Applying Sunderbhai and ABC Express, it held that the vehicle’s seizure under the Prohibition Act did not require it to remain in police custody pending trial: Section 98(2) did not create an absolute bar to interim release, and continued storage risked deterioration.
pp. 4–5The Court considered those concerns capable of being addressed through security, an undertaking against transfer, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when required.
p. 505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial concludes, and agreeing to produce it when directed.
p. 5The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 5Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 5–6A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.
pp. 5–6Rule was made absolute.
p. 6Original Court PDF
AJAYKUMAR SHEKHARBHAI DUMEKARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
