Gujarat HC Orders Maruti Alto Seized In Liquor Case Returned To Owner Against Surety, With Transfer Barred During Trial

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could direct interim release of the seized vehicle in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the Maruti Alto LXI upon the specified conditions: solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR; an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial; production when directed; and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence

It also directed

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, and the RTO was directed to record the transfer restraint, subject to any contrary order of the trial court

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Alto LXI, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an alleged Gujarat Prohibition Act offence involving the transportation of liquor without a pass or permit

pp. 1–2

He invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Sections 528 and 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relying on the need to prevent seized vehicles from deteriorating while in police custody

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could direct interim release of the seized vehicle in exercise of its constitutional and statutory powers

pp. 1, 3–4

ii.Whether the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions barred interim release of the vehicle pending trial

p. 2, 4

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to direct release of seized property in an appropriate case

p. 1, 3

Section 497 of the BNSS concerns interim custody of property pending inquiry or trial, and Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent powers

p. 1

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security

pp. 2–3

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS

p. 4

It additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat

p. 3

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 petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and continued retention risked the vehicle’s deterioration.

pp. 2–4

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, the Court concluded that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle’s preservation and availability for trial.

pp. 2–4

It therefore ordered release against solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it also required photographs and a panchnama and directed the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

pp. 4–5

05Holding

p. 4

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, and the RTO was directed to record the transfer restraint, subject to any contrary order of the trial court

p. 5

Rule was made absolute

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF