01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Bajaj Auto CNG vehicle, registration No. GJ-03-BX-3237, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
p. 1The prosecution alleged that police intercepted the vehicle on secret information and found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Morbi Taluka Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 1The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4ii.2. If release was permissible, what conditions should govern the vehicle’s interim custody.
pp. 4–503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief, and Section 497 of the BNSS concerns custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.
p. 1In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.
pp. 2–3The Court 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 does not impose an absolute bar on 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. 3It also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.
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 treated the confiscation provisions as not automatically preventing interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 98(2) and its recognition of the court’s power to regulate custody pending trial.
p. 3It also considered the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating while kept at police stations and the prior coordinate Bench decision granting similar relief.
pp. 2–3It therefore allowed release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, ensuring its production when required, and documenting its condition before release.
pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon 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; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
AVESH GAFARBHAI PILUDIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
