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

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The petition was allowed and the truck was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR; undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal; producing it when directed; and accepting that it would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, 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, and the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of a Tata LP Truck seized in connection with C.R. No. 11207024250979 of 2025, registered at Godhra Taluka Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The prosecution alleged that the truck was carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions

p. 2, 4

ii.If so, on what conditions the vehicle should be released pending trial

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The High Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and its power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their production when required.

pp. 2–3

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).

p. 4

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as an instance of release under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court considered the vehicle’s seizure in a prohibition case and the State’s objection based on the possibility of confiscation.

pp. 2–4

It concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, having regard to the Supreme Court’s holding in M/s ABC Express and the principle against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner’s financier had no objection to release, and the Court addressed the need to preserve the vehicle and secure its availability for trial through surety, an undertaking, production requirements, and documentation of its condition.

pp. 2, 4–5

05Holding

pp. 4–5

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

p. 5

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, and the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF