Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Auto-Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Does Not Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding Section 98(2) of that Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing a 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 further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

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

A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the RTO, with a corresponding entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Bajaj CNG auto-rickshaw, registration No. GJ-27-TB-4546, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle on 22 December 2025, and the Sessions Court dismissed her revision on 6 January 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner sought release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that continued impoundment would cause deterioration and producing the financier’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding Section 98(2) of that Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to release of the vehicle subject to conditions securing its preservation and production during trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS empower the Court to make appropriate orders concerning interim custody of seized property.

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

p. 3

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a coordinate Bench released a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 3

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the Court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC (now Section 497 BNSS).

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and that the financier had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2, 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, it concluded that leaving the vehicle in police custody risked deterioration and that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release.

pp. 3–4

The risk of transfer or non-production could be addressed through a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, a requirement to produce it when directed, and documentation of its condition before release.

p. 5

05Holding

p. 5

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

p. 5

A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the RTO, with a corresponding entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF