01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hyundai Venue seized in connection with an FIR under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its release as muddamal.
p. 1 · p. 3The Magistrate rejected his release application on 29 June 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 23 July 2026.
p. 2The petitioner argued that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in custody and produced a bank no-objection certificate concerning its hypothecation.
p. 2The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.
p. 302Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act notwithstanding Section 98(2) of that Act.
pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released subject to conditions that protect its availability for trial and preserve the evidentiary record.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property. Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), as noted in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.
p. 4In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left unattended to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security to ensure their return when required.
pp. 3–4The High Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65Section 81Section 83Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
04Reasoning
The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk that continued police custody would cause it to deteriorate.
pp. 2–3Applying Sunderbhai and the principle that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim custody, the Court held that release was appropriate, subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle could be produced and would not be transferred during trial.
pp. 3–5The bank’s no-objection certificate was also taken on record.
p. 205Holding
The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing 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; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 5Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO for an entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.
p. 5Original Court PDF
SHAIKH ABDUL MUTLIB SAHULHAMIDvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
