Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Man’s Wagon R Seized In Liquor Case Despite Prohibition Act Confiscation Clause

Police intercepted a Wagon R VXI, registration No. GJ-21-CA-1153, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Navsari Rural Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The vehicle was seized, and its owner petitioned under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking its release.

The State opposed release by relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner to seek release of seized property, while Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning custody and disposal of property.

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

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a coordinate Bench ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

As recounted in this judgment, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court treated the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions as not creating an absolute bar to interim custody, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

It also considered the risk that a vehicle left in police custody could deteriorate, as identified in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, and the coordinate Bench’s prior release order in Musa Khan Jat.

It therefore ordered release subject to security and conditions intended to preserve the vehicle and ensure its availability for trial.

The order further provided that, in the event of a subsequent offence, the vehicle would stand confiscated.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchanama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.