Gujarat HC Orders Conditional Release Of Tempo Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Bar Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Eicher Tempo bearing registration No. MH.17.CV.6063, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an alleged liquor-transport offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The vehicle was financed by HDB Financial Services Limited, which had issued a no-objection certificate permitting its release to the petitioner.

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner relied on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat* and a coordinate-bench decision in *Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat*.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer jurisdiction on the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including an order for release of seized property.

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.

As explained in *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate; they may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security, with provision for their return if required.

The Court also relied on *M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat*, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

The Court considered the petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s no-objection certificate, and noted the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions.

Applying *Sunderbhai* and the Supreme Court’s decision in *M/s ABC Express*, it held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent an order for interim custody and that the vehicle need not remain in police custody pending trial.

To preserve the vehicle’s availability and evidentiary value, the Court imposed conditions requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and police documentation of the vehicle’s condition.

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 panchanama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.