Gujarat HC Orders Creta Seized In Liquor Case Released To Registered Owner, Though He Has Not Been Arrested

In brief

The question

Whether the Court could direct interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until trial concludes, and producing it whenever directed.

It also directed

The Court further directed that photographs and a panchnama be prepared before release and included with the charge-sheet papers; the RTO was to be notified of the restraint on transfer.

The order also provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Creta vehicle allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its interim release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions and also noted that the petitioner had not been arrested.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the Court could direct interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner’s non-arrest was a ground to reject the application for interim release

p. 4

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property.

p. 4

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court emphasised that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which released a vehicle by exercising constitutional powers, and referred to M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, on the interaction between interim custody powers and Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The Court treated the vehicle’s interim custody as distinct from the question of its eventual confiscation.

pp. 3–4

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express, it held that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release, provided safeguards were imposed to secure the vehicle’s availability and preserve the prosecution’s interests.

pp. 3–4

The petitioner’s non-arrest had no bearing on the application and was rejected as a ground for refusal.

p. 4

05Holding

pp. 4–5

The Court further directed that photographs and a panchnama be prepared before release and included with the charge-sheet papers; the RTO was to be notified of the restraint on transfer.

pp. 4–5

The order also provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

pp. 4–5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF