Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Does Not Absolutely Bar Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift bearing registration No. GJ-27-AP-3883, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 17 July 2026, and the Sessions Judge dismissed his revision on 13 August 2026.

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that continued detention could cause the vehicle to deteriorate

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the Court also referred to its powers under Article 227 and Section 497 of the BNSS

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not remain unattended at police stations and may be returned on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their production when required

The High Court also relied on 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 create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS

It further noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, releasing a vehicle in an analogous case

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle had been seized in connection with the pending FIR.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not preclude interim release and that retaining the vehicle risked its deterioration.

The Court therefore allowed release subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production for trial

The trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurred.

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

A copy of the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.