Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Registered Owner’s Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, As Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the concerned trial court or authority was directed to release the rickshaw subject to 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. The order further provided for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurred

It also directed

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj Auto CNG rickshaw, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected her release application on 14 July 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed her revision on 1 August 2026

p. 2

The petitioner argued that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle and relied on the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to conditions safeguarding its availability for trial

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case

pp. 2–3

Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—identified in the judgment as Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita—permits a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial

p. 4

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

pp. 3–4

The judgment also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227

p. 3

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the prospect of confiscation under Section 98(2) did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

pp. 3–5

The risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody could be addressed through conditions requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, and production of the vehicle when directed

pp. 3–5