Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Case Scooter Released To Registered Owner Against Full-Value Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized scooter notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the scooter was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order also provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the scooter and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any further order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Suzuki Burgman scooter, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was transporting liquor without a permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 2–3

The petitioner stated that the scooter was financed by HDB Financial Services Ltd. and produced the financier’s no-objection certificate permitting its release.

¶ 5

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized scooter notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 6, 9

ii.If so, whether the scooter should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation.

¶ 8–12

03Law Applied

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution and its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 2

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, pending proceedings.

¶ 8

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

¶ 7

Further, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that 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 proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

¶ 9

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC, alongside the State’s objection based on the Act’s confiscation provisions.

¶ 5–6

Applying the principle that confiscation provisions do not create an absolute bar to interim release, and that prolonged retention may cause a vehicle to deteriorate, the Court concluded that release was appropriate subject to conditions protecting the vehicle’s availability for trial.

¶ 8–9, 11–12