Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Scorpio Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Mahindra Scorpio allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and seized it in connection with an FIR registered at Ramol Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release, stating that the vehicle’s financier had issued a no-objection certificate after the loan dues were cleared.

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

The State opposed release by relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers the High Court may exercise to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not operate as an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, as recognised by the Supreme Court in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also referred to 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.

The Court considered the petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC, and applied the principle that a vehicle need not remain at a police station pending trial if its return can be secured by appropriate conditions.

It held that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

To preserve the vehicle’s availability and address the possibility of confiscation, the Court required a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production whenever directed.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer until the trial’s final disposal, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.