Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Case Bolero Returned To Owner, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Bar Interim Release

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2).

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the Bolero Pickup on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and undertaking to produce it when directed.

It also directed

It further ordered that the vehicle be photographed and a panchnama prepared before release, with those materials included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Mahindra Bolero Pickup, registered in his name, after allegedly finding liquor in it without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner then sought release under Article 226 of the Constitution and Sections 497 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the vehicle could deteriorate if kept in custody.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2).

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions to preserve it pending trial.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of a seized vehicle; the Court also referred to its powers under Sections 497 and 528 of the BNSS.

p. 1

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 at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

pp. 3–4

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

p. 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 by exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497 Section 528

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 83 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk that continued police custody would cause it to deteriorate.

pp. 3–5

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved through conditions securing its availability and preventing its transfer.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

pp. 4–5

It further ordered that the vehicle be photographed and a panchnama prepared before release, with those materials included in the charge-sheet papers.

pp. 4–5

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

pp. 4–5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF