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

Police intercepted an Innova car, registration No. GJ-18-EF-0111, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Panshina Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers that may be exercised to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits a court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

As stated in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle; a court may order its interim custody under Section 451 CrPC.

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, supports prompt release of seized vehicles against appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, rather than allowing them to deteriorate in police custody.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case.

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued retention in light of the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai, and the authority to order interim custody under Section 497 BNSS.

It held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, relying on the Supreme Court’s statement in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

The State’s acknowledgment that the High Court could order release, together with the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, supported granting relief subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, restricting its transfer, and ensuring its production.

The order further provided that a subsequent offence would result in confiscation.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

The Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.