Gujarat HC Orders Creta Seized In Liquor Case Released To Petitioner Against Surety, Bars Transfer Until Trial Ends

Police intercepted a Creta car, registration No. GJ-21-CE-3312, on secret information that it was carrying liquor.

A search allegedly revealed liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Pardi Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the car, relying on the Court’s constitutional and statutory powers; the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

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

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle in an appropriate case; the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 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, and security, with orders made promptly.

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, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a vehicle and that a court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

It further noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which released a vehicle by exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the State’s objection based on the Act’s confiscation provisions but noted that the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release where appropriate.

Applying Sunderbhai’s concern about deterioration of seized vehicles and M/s ABC Express’s holding that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar, the Court concluded that the car could be released subject to safeguards securing its value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, 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, and, in case of hypothecation, the original NOC was required before issuance of the writ.

Rule was made absolute.