01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Eeco, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. Police had intercepted the vehicle on receiving secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Megharaj Police Station
p. 2 · ¶ 3The petitioner relied on a financier’s NOC permitting release of the vehicle
p. 2 · ¶ 5The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case
p. 3 · ¶ 602Issues
i.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. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 9ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released, and, if so, on what safeguards and conditions
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–1303Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case; the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
p. 2 · ¶ 2In 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 entrusted to their owner or another appropriate person subject to bonds, guarantees, and security for production when required
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8The 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, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS
p. 4 · ¶ 9A coordinate Bench decision, Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, was cited as an instance of vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227
p. 3 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court treated the petitioner’s ownership and the financier’s NOC as supporting the request for release
p. 2 · ¶ 5Applying Sunderbhai’s concern that vehicles may deteriorate in police custody, and ABC Express’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo, the Court concluded that interim release was available despite the confiscation provisions
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–9It addressed the need to preserve the vehicle’s evidentiary value and ensure its availability by imposing security, non-transfer, production, and documentation requirements
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 11–1305Holding
The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the Maruti Suzuki Eeco upon 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 when directed; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence
p. 4 · ¶ 11Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers
p. 5 · ¶ 12A copy was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the Trial Court
p. 5 · ¶ 13Rule was made absolute
p. 5 · ¶ 14Original Court PDF
MALIVAD RAMANBHAI DOLABHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
