Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized Auto-Rickshaw To Registered Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act 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 Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, producing it when directed, and accepting that it would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Atul Gemini DZ Premium Auto Rickshaw, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 2–4, 6 · pp. 1–3

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

¶ 2–4, 6 · pp. 1–3

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate.

¶ 2–4, 6 · pp. 1–3

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

¶ 2–4, 6 · pp. 1–3

02Issues

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

¶ 4, 9

ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions pending trial.

¶ 6–11

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empower the Court to make appropriate orders for interim custody of seized property.

¶ 9

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the Court may order its release subject to safeguards (M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885).

¶ 9

The principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, support avoiding prolonged detention of vehicles in police premises and permitting release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

¶ 8

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle by exercising constitutional powers.

¶ 7

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the financier had provided a no-objection certificate for its release.

¶ 6–9, 11–13

Prolonged retention risked deterioration of the vehicle, while the State’s objection based on confiscation did not establish an absolute prohibition on interim custody.

¶ 6–9, 11–13

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that release was appropriate with conditions preserving the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.

¶ 6–9, 11–13