Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Contraband-Seized Eeco, 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 prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

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

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Maruti Eeco bearing registration No. GJ-15-AD-9210 after receiving information that it was carrying contraband.

pp. 1–2

A search allegedly found contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Valsad Rural Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle pending trial, relying on the Court’s constitutional and statutory powers and the risk of deterioration while it remained in police custody.

pp. 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner pending trial, and, if so, on what safeguards and conditions

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the Court’s power to order custody of property.

p. 3

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which observed that seized vehicles should not remain unattended at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

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 of the BNSS.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention in light of the risk that it would deteriorate in police custody and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

p. 3

It accepted that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release, applying the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express.

p. 4

The Court therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production when required, and preserve evidence of its condition.

pp. 4–5