Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Alto Seized In Liquor Case, Requiring Surety Equal To FIR-Stated Price

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 Alto was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

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 panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order by the trial court.

01Facts

Police intercepted an Alto car, registration No. GJ-01-RD-0435, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

pp. 1–2

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Bakor Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of the seized car on interim custody.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 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

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released, and on what conditions

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for interim custody of property.

pp. 2–3

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against leaving seized vehicles unused and deteriorating, and supports their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–3

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

Citing M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

pp. 3–4

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention in light of the risk of deterioration and the principles in Sunderbhai.

pp. 2–3

It applied the recent ruling in M/s ABC Express to reject the contention that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions categorically precluded interim release.

pp. 3–4

Following the coordinate-bench approach in Musa Khan Jat, it ordered release subject to security and safeguards designed to preserve the vehicle and ensure its availability.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

p. 4

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

p. 4

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

p. 4

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order by the trial court.

pp. 4–5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF