Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized Eicher Truck In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite 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 a solvent surety equal 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.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s expense, and a copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Eicher Pro vehicle, registration No. GJ-23-AW-8248, on secret information and allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered at Bhilad Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and producing a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 1–2

The State objected on the basis of the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on terms securing its preservation and production during trial

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–3

It also applied the Supreme Court’s decision in 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 and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.C.R.A. No. 7190 of 2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

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 continued detention and the risk of deterioration against the statutory confiscation objection.

pp. 2–4

In light of M/S ABC Express, it concluded that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved as evidence through safeguards.

pp. 2–4

The petitioner’s finance company no-objection certificate and the availability of conditions—including a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, and an obligation to produce the vehicle—supported release.

pp. 2–4