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

Police intercepted a Maruti Ertiga allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while not disputing the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief and exercise supervisory jurisdiction.

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the judgment also refers to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor.

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 released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

In M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

The Court treated the confiscation provisions as no absolute obstacle to interim release, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

It also considered the risk that a vehicle left in police custody could deteriorate, as noted in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, and the analogous release ordered in Musa Khan Jat.

The Court therefore found release appropriate, subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and measures to document its condition before release.

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; both were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.