Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Car Seized With Liquor, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar to Release

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the Swift car upon the petitioner 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 further ordered that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

The rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought interim release of a Swift car bearing registration No. GJ-10-DR-2006, seized after police allegedly intercepted it carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered at Ranavav Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could exercise its Article 226 powers to order release.

¶ 5 · p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

¶ 5, 8 · pp. 2–4

ii.2. If so, whether release should be subject to safeguards to ensure the vehicle’s preservation and availability during trial

¶ 7, 10–13 · pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case; the petitioner also invoked Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1 · p. 1

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

¶ 7 · p. 3

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 make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 BNSS).

¶ 8 · pp. 3–4

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

¶ 6 · p. 2

Provisions 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 confiscation provisions as no absolute obstacle to interim custody, applying the principle stated in M/s ABC Express.

¶ 8 · pp. 3–4

It considered release appropriate in light of the risk that vehicles kept at police stations may deteriorate, as recognised in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, and the prior coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat.

¶ 6–7 · pp. 2–3

To protect the proceedings, it imposed security, non-transfer, production, and documentation requirements.

¶ 10–13 · pp. 4–5