Gujarat HC Orders Liquor-Seizure XUV Released Pending Trial, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Rule Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order the vehicle’s interim release notwithstanding the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle on the prescribed conditions:

It also directed

the petitioner must furnish solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it pending trial, produce it when directed, and accept that it will stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Mahindra XUV 300, registration No. GJ-06-PB-8308, after allegedly finding liquor in the vehicle.

p. 1

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

p. 1

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

p. 1

The petitioner then sought release under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the vehicle could deteriorate while in custody and that the finance company had issued a no-objection certificate

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order the vehicle’s interim release notwithstanding the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including interim release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits a court to make orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

p. 3

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 in police custody and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security

p. 3

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle

pp. 3–4

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the vehicle was at risk of deterioration if retained in police custody.

pp. 3–5

The Court considered the authorities establishing that interim release may be ordered despite Section 98(2), provided adequate safeguards are imposed.

pp. 3–5

It therefore found release appropriate, subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when directed

pp. 3–5