Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Registered Owner’s Seized KTM, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Bar Is Not Absolute

In brief

The question

Whether the seized motorcycle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the motorcycle to the petitioner upon her furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The vehicle is to stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

The order is also to be communicated to the RTO, with transfer restrained pending trial unless the trial court permits it.

01Facts

The petitioner sought interim release of a Bajaj KTM 200 Duke motorcycle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11821014260401/2026.

p. 1

She claimed to be its registered owner and produced a no-objection certificate from the financier, Bajaj Finance Limited.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute that the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order release.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the seized motorcycle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–3

ii.Whether release should be subject to safeguards to preserve the vehicle and ensure its production during the trial.

pp. 3–5

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.

p. 1

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

pp. 3–4

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 does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

p. 4

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which had ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

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 petitioner’s ownership claim and the financier’s NOC supported release in her favour.

p. 2

The State’s reliance on the confiscation provisions did not preclude interim custody because, under M/s ABC Express, Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on release.

pp. 3–4

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai, the Court considered it appropriate to prevent the vehicle from deteriorating while securing its availability for the proceedings.

p. 4

It therefore imposed conditions, including a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

pp. 4–5