Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Trailer Seized In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct 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 concerned Trial Court or authority was directed to release the trailer 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 producing it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; photographs and a panchnama were to be prepared before release, and the RTO notified of the transfer restraint.

The Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original finance-company NOC.

01Facts

The petitioner sought interim release of a Tata Motors trailer, registration No. HR-62-A-2913, seized after police allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

An FIR was registered at Bhachau Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a finance-company certificate confirming regular payment of instalments, but not a no-objection certificate (NOC) to release the vehicle.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

Counsel undertook to produce the original NOC before issuance of the writ.

p. 2 · ¶ 4

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

p. 2 · ¶ 5

02Issues

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

p. 2, 4 · ¶ 5, 8

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner, and on what safeguards and conditions

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 4, 9–13

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning interim custody of property.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, in which release was ordered under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

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 that the vehicle’s continued retention could lead to deterioration and that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, absolutely preclude interim release.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–10

It therefore exercised its jurisdiction to order release, while protecting the trial process and potential confiscation through a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, and a requirement to produce it when directed.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–10

The Court also required photographs and a panchnama before release, and directed that the RTO be notified of the restraint on transfer.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–12

Because the finance certificate did not itself contain the lender’s NOC, issuance of the writ was made conditional on the Registry receiving the original NOC within two working weeks.

p. 2, 5 · ¶ 4, 13