Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Pickup Seized In Alleged Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner sought interim release of a Mahindra Bolero Pick Up, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Waghai Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner produced a no-objection certificate from the finance company and relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai; the State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it applied the principle that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release, and that the Court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release in an analogous case.

The Court accepted that the vehicle was seized in connection with a prohibition offence and that the Act contained confiscation provisions, but treated those provisions as no absolute bar to interim custody in light of M/s ABC Express.

Consistent with Sunderbhai and the coordinate Bench decision, it concluded that retaining the vehicle at the police station was unnecessary where its availability could be secured through conditions.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s expense and prepare a panchanama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the Trial Court; the Court further directed that any subsequent offence would result in confiscation of the vehicle.