Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized Creta On Surety, Says Prohibition Act Confiscation Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released 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 Hyundai Creta upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal 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. The order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers; a copy of the order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted and searched a Hyundai Creta, registration No. GJ-39-CC-5190, after receiving information that it was carrying contraband. The vehicle was allegedly found carrying contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought the vehicle’s release under 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 Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether release should be subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s preservation and production during trial

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and the Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction alongside its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 497 of the BNSS.

pp. 1–2

Referring to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–3

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release, and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

p. 4

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

p. 2

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 Court considered the vehicle’s seizure in a Prohibition Act case and the State’s objection based on confiscation, but applied the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute impediment to interim custody.

pp. 2–5

Consistent with Sunderbhai, it treated continued storage at the police station as undesirable and ordered release subject to safeguards intended to preserve the vehicle, prevent its transfer, and ensure its availability for trial.

pp. 2–5