01Facts
Police intercepted a Kia Seltos allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered C.R. No. 11200038262495 of 2026 at Pardi Police Station, Valsad, for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2The petitioner sought release of the seized vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
p. 2The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle under its constitutional jurisdiction and the court’s powers concerning custody of property.
pp. 1–2, 4ii.2. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act barred release of the vehicle on interim custody pending trial.
pp. 3–403Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers which the Court may exercise to order release of seized property on appropriate terms.
pp. 1, 3–4Section 497 of the BNSS concerns the custody and disposal of property pending trial; the judgment also refers to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor provision.
pp. 1, 3–4In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 2–3The judgment, relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, states that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may make appropriate custody orders.
pp. 3–4It also cites the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in support of release under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 2Provisions 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 that retaining the vehicle at the police station would lead to deterioration, as addressed in Sunderbhai, and the coordinate Bench’s approach in Musa Khan Jat.
pp. 2–3It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that the confiscation provision in Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release pending trial.
pp. 3–4Accordingly, the Court ordered release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, ensuring its production when required, and addressing any subsequent offence.
pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing a 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; the order further stated that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
p. 4A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
pp. 4–5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
SAGARBHAI BHEMABHAI RAYKAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
