Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Truck Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Confiscation Provision Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted an Ashok Leyland truck, registration No. GJ-19-Z-3764, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Kadodara GIDC Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought interim release of the truck under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the Court referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor provision.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be entrusted pending proceedings on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

It 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 impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The Court treated the truck’s alleged use in a prohibition offence and the Act’s confiscation provisions as insufficient, by themselves, to prevent interim release.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate and on the stated rule that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on release pending trial.

Given the Court’s jurisdiction and the cited precedent, it ordered release subject to conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, preserve it from transfer and ensure its production when required.

The petitioner must provide a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the order further states that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

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

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.