Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Case Auto-Rickshaw Released On Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted an auto-rickshaw allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release from custody under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State objected, relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release of the vehicle.

Section 497 of the BNSS concerns interim custody of seized property.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court noted that seized vehicles should not remain at police stations and deteriorate; they may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which had ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The vehicle was liable to remain in police custody during the proceedings, but the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court considered release appropriate to avoid the vehicle’s deterioration, while safeguarding its availability and the integrity of the proceedings through conditions.

It required security equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production whenever directed; it also ordered photographs and a panchnama to preserve evidence of the vehicle’s condition.

The order further provided that, in the event of a subsequent offence, the vehicle would stand confiscated; police were directed to photograph it and prepare a panchnama, and the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial.