Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Tata Harrier Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is Not An Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Tata Harrier, sought its interim release after police seized it in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was transporting liquor without a pass or permit under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The vehicle was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, which had issued a no-objection certificate permitting its release to the petitioner.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging that the High Court could order release under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order interim release of seized property.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial, was invoked by the petitioner.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against leaving seized vehicles unattended and deteriorating at police stations and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, as holding 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 the corresponding provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court considered the petitioner’s ownership claim and the financier’s no-objection certificate, together with the risk that continued storage at the police station would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s treatment of the interaction between interim custody and the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, it held that confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

The vehicle could therefore be released subject to security, non-transfer, production, and documentation safeguards.

The petitioner must furnish solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the order further provides for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must be sent to the registering RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.