Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Case Truck Released To Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Release

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized truck notwithstanding the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the truck was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama; a copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

01Facts

Police seized an SML Isuzu truck, registration No. GJ-27-V-8489, after allegedly finding liquor being transported without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–3

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–3

The petitioner’s application for release of the truck was rejected by the Magistrate on 22 June 2026, and his criminal revision was rejected on 12 August 2026.

pp. 1–3

He then sought release under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution, arguing that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

pp. 1–3

The judgment records the petitioner as its registered owner.

pp. 1–3

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized truck notwithstanding the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the truck should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preservation for trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

pp. 3–4

Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) permits courts to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

pp. 3–4

As stated in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

pp. 3–4

Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, advises against keeping seized vehicles unattended and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

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

pp. 3–4

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

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized truck and that its continued detention risked deterioration.

pp. 3–5

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, it held that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved through conditions requiring security, non-transfer and production when directed.

pp. 3–5

The Court also required photographs and a panchanama to preserve evidence for trial.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

pp. 4–5

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

pp. 4–5

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama; a copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

pp. 4–5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF