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

Police seized the petitioner’s MG ZS EV car, registration No. GJ-06-RA-4602, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(e), 116(B), 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Magistrate on 27 July 2026; his criminal revision was rejected by the Sessions Judge on 11 August 2026.

The petitioner sought release before the High Court, submitting that the vehicle risked deterioration if kept in police custody and that the hypothecating bank had issued a no-objection certificate.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the petitioner also invoked the Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police-station premises and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their return when required.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a coordinate Bench had released a vehicle in an analogous case.

It further noted the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The Court considered that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR; it also noted the bank’s no-objection certificate regarding release.

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation under Section 98(2) did not, by itself, prevent interim release. Keeping the vehicle in police custody risked deterioration, while conditions requiring security, an undertaking against transfer and production when directed could safeguard its availability for trial.

Release was conditional on furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, producing it when directed, and the vehicle standing confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

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