Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized SUV, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to its price as stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

The Court further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; that police photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchanama before release, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; and that the order be sent to the RTO for recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

The Rule was made absolute

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Maruti Vitara Breeza, registration No. GJ-15-CG-3333, after receiving secret information that it was carrying contraband.

p. 1

A search allegedly found contraband without a pass or permit, leading to registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle while the proceedings were pending.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released pending trial and, if so, on what conditions

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property.

pp. 2–3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security

pp. 2–3

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.C.R.A. No. 7190 of 2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227

p. 3

It further cited M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle 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, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS

p. 3

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 risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody and concluded that interim release was not barred by the confiscation provisions of the Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, and noting the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat, it directed release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required

pp. 2–4