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

Police intercepted a Tata truck, registration No. RJ-19-GE-9968, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Amirgadh Police Station, Banaskantha, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release from custody under Articles 226 of the Constitution and Sections 528 and 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He produced a financier’s no-objection certificate permitting release in his favour.

The State objected in light of the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the Court’s power to order release.

Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empower a court to make appropriate orders for the interim custody of seized property.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate and may be handed to their owner or another entitled person on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

The Court 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 of a seized vehicle pending trial.

The petitioner established ownership and produced the financier’s no-objection certificate. Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court held that the possibility of confiscation under the Prohibition Act did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

To preserve the vehicle’s value and ensure its availability for trial, the Court required security equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and police photographs and a panchnama before release.

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission from the trial court. Rule was made absolute.