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

In brief

The question

Whether the Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner on furnishing a solvent surety equal 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.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and the RTO was to record the restraint on transfer.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Verna CRDISX car, registration No. GJ-08-BB-7250, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release, stating that the financier had issued an NOC permitting release in his favour.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the Court could order release under Article 226.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–9

ii.Whether the petitioner, as registered owner and upon furnishing appropriate safeguards, was entitled to interim custody of the vehicle.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 5, 10–13

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate;

p. 1 · ¶ 2

the petitioner also invoked the Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held 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. 3–4 · ¶ 8

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC (Section 497 BNSS).

p. 4 · ¶ 9

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 petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC supported his request for custody.

p. 2 · ¶ 5

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court found that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release and that continued retention could be avoided through safeguards preserving the vehicle and ensuring its availability for trial.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–12

The Court therefore ordered release subject to security, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and documentation of the vehicle’s condition.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11–13