Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Brezza Seized In Prohibition Case, Subject To Surety And No-Transfer Conditions

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

It further ordered that photographs and a panchnama be prepared at the petitioner’s cost and included with the charge-sheet papers; the RTO was to be notified of the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

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

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Brezza LXI seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its release while the criminal case was pending.

pp. 1–2

The vehicle was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, which had issued a no-objection certificate permitting its release to the petitioner.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution confers writ jurisdiction, and Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction; the Court also referred to its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their return when required.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody.

p. 4

It additionally noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

Provisions 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 vehicle had been seized in a pending Prohibition Act case, but the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release.

pp. 2–4

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court considered release appropriate to avoid the vehicle’s deterioration, while protecting the trial process through security and other conditions.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner’s ownership and the financier’s NOC supported release in his favour.

pp. 2–4