01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Maruti Swift seized in connection with an FIR alleging that it was carrying contraband without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 1The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate.
p. 2The State opposed release by referring to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.
p. 2The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat on interim custody of vehicles seized under the Act.
p. 402Issues
i.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.
p. 2 · p. 4ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions securing its preservation and production during the trial.
p. 2 · pp. 4–503Law 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 custody and disposal of property pending trial.
p. 1Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate at police stations; courts may release them on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their production when required.
pp. 3–4It 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, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.
p. 4The Court also referred to the coordinate bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.
p. 2Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court considered the risk that continued retention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate, the petitioner’s supporting no-objection certificate, and the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be secured through conditions requiring a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production when directed.
pp. 3–5It further directed police to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, preserving evidence for trial.
p. 505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the concerned trial court or authority was directed to release the Maruti Swift upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent 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; the order also provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 5The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, and the order was to be communicated to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
JADAV BHURABHAI SOLANKIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
