Gujarat HC Orders Interim Release Of Woman’s Wagon R Seized In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner sought release of her Maruti Wagon R, seized after police allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Tilakwada Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

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

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat on interim release of vehicles seized under the Act.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to direct release of a seized vehicle in an appropriate case; the Court also referred to its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police-station premises and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

The Court relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release, and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

It also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court accepted that the vehicle was seized in connection with an alleged Prohibition Act offence, but concluded that the Act’s confiscation provisions did not absolutely prevent interim release.

The State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release, and the finance company had no objection to the vehicle being released to the petitioner.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, the Court considered release appropriate rather than allowing the vehicle to remain in police custody, while imposing safeguards to secure its preservation and production during trial.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

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 permitting transfer.

The Rule was made absolute.