Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Truck Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Eicher vehicle 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 under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle as muddamal, relying on the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and the principle against leaving seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody.

He also tendered a no-objection certificate from the finance company.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226.

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required.

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

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 absolutely bar interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the State’s objection based on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but found that Section 98(2) did not impose an absolute bar to interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, it concluded that the vehicle could be released subject to safeguards securing its availability and preserving the trial process.

The order further provided for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurred.

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

A copy of the order was to 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.