Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Creta Seized In Liquor Case, Requiring Surety And No Transfer Until Trial Ends

In brief

The question

Whether the Court could direct interim release of the seized vehicle despite 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 upon furnishing solvent surety equivalent to its price as stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it whenever directed.

It also directed

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

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the RTO, with transfer restricted pending trial unless the Trial Court permits it.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Hyundai Creta, registration No. GJ-01-RN-5324, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

¶ 1–5 · pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered at Desar Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 1–5 · pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle and produced a no-objection certificate from the finance company. The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

¶ 1–5 · pp. 1–2

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and the High Court’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat.

¶ 4, 6–7 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

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

¶ 5, 8 · pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its production and preservation pending trial

¶ 9–12 · pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle where appropriate; the Court also referred to its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1, 5 · pp. 1–2

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be entrusted to their owner or another appropriate person on suitable bond, guarantee and security.

¶ 7 · p. 3

As described in this judgment, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat 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 order its proper custody.

¶ 8 · p. 3

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 considered the vehicle’s continued detention against the risk of its deterioration and the applicable principles on interim custody.

¶ 5, 7–8 · pp. 2–3

It noted that the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions did not negate the Court’s power to order release, and relied on the Supreme Court’s stated interpretation that Section 98(2) does not impose an absolute embargo.

¶ 5, 7–8 · pp. 2–3

The Court therefore allowed release while imposing conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, and ensure its production during trial.

¶ 9–12 · pp. 3–5