Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of KTM Seized In Liquor Case Despite Prohibition Act Confiscation Clause

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was directed 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.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated 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; these were to form part of the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Bajaj KTM 200 Duke, registration No. MP-09-XD-5599, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 98(2) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the JMFC, Garbada, and his criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court. He then sought its release, submitting that continued storage could cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

pp. 1–2

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release where appropriate.

p. 3

02Issues

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

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether the seized vehicle should be released to its registered owner on conditions pending trial.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate.

pp. 2–3

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property, permits appropriate orders for its proper custody; the Court noted that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

p. 4

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court reiterated that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bond, guarantee and security.

pp. 3–4

It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, regarding release of seized vehicles and interim custody despite the confiscation provisions.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle remained seized in connection with the pending prohibition case.

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the principles concerning interim custody under Section 497 BNSS, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent conditional release.

pp. 3–5

Continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle, while conditions requiring security, preservation and production could protect the proceedings.

pp. 3–5