Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Seized Innova Released Pending Trial, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted an Innova vehicle, registration No. MH-48-A-4709, after receiving secret information that it was carrying liquor.

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

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the Court’s constitutional and inherent powers and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute that the Court could order release under Article 226.

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

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers a court to make orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

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 suitable bond, guarantee, and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court applied the principles against prolonged retention and deterioration of seized vehicles, noting that a coordinate bench had ordered release in an analogous case.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act was not an absolute bar to interim custody.

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to preserve the vehicle, secure its production, and prevent its transfer pending trial.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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