Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Truck Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act Confiscation Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Eicher Pro 2059XP CNG HSD vehicle, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

Police had intercepted the vehicle on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Ankleshwar City B Division Police Station, Bharuch.

The vehicle was financed by Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd., which 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.

The Court relied on its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, and referred to its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It considered the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee and security, subject to production when required.

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, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC (Section 497 BNSS).

The Court further noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court treated the confiscation provisions as no absolute impediment to interim custody, in light of ABC Express, and considered release consistent with the principle that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate.

The petitioner was the registered owner and had obtained the financier’s NOC; the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

The Court therefore allowed release subject to safeguards designed to preserve the vehicle, ensure its production, and prevent its transfer during trial.

The Court further directed that the vehicle stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; that police photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers; and that a copy of the order be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.