01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Hyundai Creta seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was transporting liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and tendered a no-objection certificate from the finance company.
¶ 4 · p. 2The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.
¶ 5 · p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 5, 8 · pp. 2–3ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner’s power-of-attorney holder or only to its registered owner.
¶ 13 · p. 503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property; Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns custody and disposal of property during inquiry or trial.
¶ 1 · p. 1Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order its proper custody under the applicable interim-custody power.
¶ 8 · p. 3In 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 appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.
¶ 7 · pp. 2–3The High Court also relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as authority for release under Articles 226 and 227.
¶ 6 · p. 2Provisions 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 that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked its deterioration, while the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not categorically prevent interim release.
¶ 4–5 · pp. 2–3The finance company’s no-objection certificate supported the request, and the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.
¶ 4–5 · pp. 2–3Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and Musa Khan Jat, the Court ordered release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value and availability for trial.
¶ 6–8 · pp. 2–3Since the petition was filed through a power of attorney, it directed that possession be delivered to the registered owner.
¶ 13 · p. 505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the Hyundai Creta to its registered owner upon a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and an undertaking to produce it when directed.
¶ 9–13 · pp. 3–5The order further provided for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurred, police photographs and a panchnama before release, and notice to the RTO to record the restriction on transfer.
¶ 9–13 · pp. 3–5Rule was made absolute.
¶ 14 · p. 5Original Court PDF
MANOHARLAL NEMA RAM POA DEVILAL DEVARAMvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
