Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Car Seized In Alleged Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Confiscation 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 petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon 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; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Swift Dzire, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 2–3, 5

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

¶ 6

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.

¶ 6, 9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner, as the registered owner, was entitled to release of the vehicle subject to safeguards pending trial.

¶ 5, 8–11

03Law Applied

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 2, 7

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left deteriorating at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security to ensure their production when required.

¶ 8

It 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 a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 497 of the BNSS).

¶ 9

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

¶ 7

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The vehicle was seized during the investigation and its continued retention risked the deterioration identified in Sunderbhai.

¶ 3, 8

The confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release: the State acknowledged the High Court’s power, and M/s ABC Express confirmed that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

¶ 6, 9

The Court therefore allowed release while imposing conditions to preserve the vehicle’s availability and evidentiary value pending trial.

¶ 10–12