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

In brief

The question

Whether the 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 ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing a 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 Court further ordered confiscation of the vehicle in the event of a subsequent offence; police photographs and a panchnama, at the petitioner’s cost, were to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer. The Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC confirming cancellation of hypothecation.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Maruti Swift VDI, registration No. GJ-16-BN-6132, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Kamrej Police Station, Surat, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle on interim custody, relying on the Court’s constitutional and inherent jurisdiction and the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating while kept at police stations. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released, and, if so, on what conditions.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

pp. 2–3

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–3

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

pp. 3–4

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, as an analogous exercise of constitutional powers to release a vehicle.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court treated the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act as not preventing interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

pp. 2–4

It also considered the practical concern identified in Sunderbhai that vehicles kept unattended at police stations may become junk, and noted the analogous release ordered in Musa Khan Jat.

pp. 2–4

It therefore concluded that release was appropriate, subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its availability for trial.

pp. 4–5