Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized Hyundai i20 To Registered Owner, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hyundai i20 Asta (O), sought release of the vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11185001260223/2026.

He relied on the Court’s constitutional powers and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

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

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

The vehicle was seized in a prohibition case, but the statutory confiscation provisions did not create an absolute embargo on interim release.

The Court applied the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, and considered the petitioner’s claim as registered owner, to conclude that continued retention was unnecessary if adequate safeguards were imposed.

The State’s objection did not displace the Court’s authority to order release.

Conditions included furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until trial concludes, producing it when directed, and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost; the documents were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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