Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Renault Duster Seized In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted and searched a Renault Duster bearing registration No. GJ-03-JC-5278 after receiving secret information that it was carrying contraband.

The vehicle was allegedly found carrying contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Paddhari Police Station, Rajkot, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle while the criminal proceedings were pending, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order release.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which discourages prolonged storage of seized vehicles at police stations and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

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 impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court accepted that the Gujarat Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

Applying the principle in Sunderbhai that vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police custody, and noting the coordinate Bench’s similar approach in Musa Khan Jat, the Court found release appropriate subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of 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 contrary order of the Trial Court; the Registry was also directed to issue the writ only after receipt of the original NOC.

Rule was made absolute.