Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Hyundai i20 Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing 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 also directed

The order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both forming part of the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order must be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later Trial Court order permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Hyundai i20, registration No. GJ-13-CC-2913, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Halvad Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the Court’s constitutional and statutory powers and on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether release should be made subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s preservation and production during the proceedings.

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.

pp. 1–2

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial, corresponds to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 1, 3

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which advises against leaving seized vehicles unattended and permits interim release against suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.

p. 3

It also cited M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, stated to hold that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 3

A coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat was also cited as an example of release under Articles 226 and 227.

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 considered the risk of deterioration if the vehicle remained in police custody and the authorities cited for interim release against safeguards.

pp. 2–3

It accepted that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not, by themselves, prevent interim custody, and relied on the stated holding in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

p. 3

It therefore ordered release while imposing conditions intended to preserve the vehicle, prevent its transfer, and ensure its availability to the Trial Court.

pp. 4–5