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

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Ashok Leyland commercial truck, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was transporting liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner produced a financier’s No Objection Certificate permitting release of the vehicle.

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release where appropriate.

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Under Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, seized vehicles should not be left unused and deteriorating in police custody; they may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with an obligation to produce them when required.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, where vehicle release was ordered under Articles 226 and 227.

It further applied the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the Court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The petitioner was the registered owner and had obtained the financier’s NOC.

Although the State invoked the confiscation provisions, it accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation did not require the vehicle to remain in police custody pending trial.

It ordered release subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and production whenever directed.

The Court also required photographs and a panchnama, and directed the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

The petitioner must furnish the specified surety, undertake not to transfer the vehicle pending final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the vehicle is to stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

The police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, and the RTO must record the restriction on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.