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

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle subject to 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 whenever directed. The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, to be included with the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court. Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Tata Motors Pick-up, registration No. GJ-21-Y-3125, on secret information and allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Palsana Police Station, Surat, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a no-objection certificate from Goyal Corporation.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

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

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

p. 1, 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

In M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Supreme Court 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 the court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 4

Provisions 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 petitioner’s request in light of the principle that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate, and the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not absolutely prevent interim release.

pp. 3–4

It also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which had released a vehicle in an analogous case. In view of these authorities, the confiscation provisions did not preclude release; the vehicle could be returned subject to safeguards securing its availability and preserving the trial’s requirements.

pp. 3–5