Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Bike Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the vehicle subject to 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 whenever directed.

It also directed

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

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission from the trial court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a TVS Apache RTR bearing registration No. GJ-20-BA-0365, sought interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an FIR registered at Dhanpur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 65(a), 98(2), 81 and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1, 3

The prosecution case was that the vehicle was carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

p. 1, 3

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s release application on 4 July 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 15 July 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner then invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking release of the vehicle.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the seized vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preservation for trial.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction to grant appropriate relief, and the Court also invoked Articles 226 and 227 and Section 497 of the BNSS in considering release of the muddamal vehicle.

p. 1, 4

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left unattended to deteriorate and that they may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee and security, subject to return when required.

p. 3

In M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle; the Court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98 Section 81

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that its continued retention risked deterioration.

pp. 2–3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provisions did not categorically prevent interim release and that custody could be safeguarded through conditions.

pp. 3–4

The coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat also supported release in the circumstances.

pp. 3–4