Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Fortuner Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was directed to be released on the stated conditions.

It also directed

Before release, police were to photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO, with transfer restrained pending trial unless permitted by the trial court.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s registered Fortuner vehicle, registration No. GJ-01-KN-1115, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered under provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Motor Vehicles Act.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 14, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, submitting that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 2–4

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its preservation and production during trial.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate, and the Court also referred to its powers under Article 227.

p. 1 · pp. 3–4

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the CrPC, enables a court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

p. 1 · p. 4

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

p. 3

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 83 Section 98

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 111 Section 125 Section 281

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 117 Section 184

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the vehicle remained seized in connection with the pending FIR.

p. 4

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release and that continued detention could lead to deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

p. 4