Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Seized Truck, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Tata truck bearing registration No. UK-01-CA-1007, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11215029220323/2022.

The vehicle was financed by Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, which had issued a No Objection Certificate permitting its release to the petitioner.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

The Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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 in police stations and may be entrusted to an appropriate person pending proceedings, subject to bonds, guarantees and security for their production when required.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court released a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

As described in this judgment, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody pending trial.

The petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC supported his request for custody.

Although the State relied on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, it did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release when appropriate.

Applying the principles against prolonged retention and deterioration of seized vehicles, and the Supreme Court’s stated holding that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim release, the Court found release appropriate subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle and ensuring its availability for trial.

Release was conditional on a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and production of the vehicle when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the RTO for entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court.

Rule was made absolute.