Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Two Scooters Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court could order interim release of vehicles seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the two TVS Jupiter 125 scooters were ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer them until final disposal of the trial, and producing them when directed.

It also directed

The Court further directed that photographs be taken and a panchnama prepared before release, with both included in the charge-sheet papers; a copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

The rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted vehicles allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered C.R. No. 11993003261034 of 2026 at Anjar Police Station, Kachchh East, Gandhidham, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought release of two seized TVS Jupiter 125 scooters under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court could order interim release of vehicles seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s two scooters should be released subject to conditions safeguarding their availability and preventing their transfer pending trial.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Article 227 provides supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the BNSS concerns interim custody of property.

p. 3

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

p. 3

Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

pp. 3–4

The Court also referred to the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The vehicles were seized in connection with alleged prohibition offences, but the confiscation provisions did not prevent the Court from ordering interim custody.

pp. 3–5

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court considered release appropriate to avoid vehicles remaining unused and deteriorating, while protecting the proceedings through financial security, an undertaking against transfer, and an obligation to produce the vehicles when required.

pp. 3–5