01Facts
Police intercepted the petitioner’s Bajaj Auto CNG vehicle, registration No. GJ-14-Y-4052, on secret information that it was carrying contraband. A search allegedly found contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Shapar Veraval Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat* and producing a finance company’s no-objection certificate. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 1–202Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions pending trial.
pp. 4–503Law Applied
The Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and its power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
p. 1Relying on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be entrusted to an appropriate person on bond, guarantee, and security, subject to production when required.
p. 3It also relied on *M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat*, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle; the Court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.
p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court considered the vehicle’s seizure in a prohibition case alongside the risk of its deterioration if kept in police custody.
pp. 2–5It accepted that the confiscation provisions did not preclude interim release, applying the Supreme Court’s guidance in *Sunderbhai* and *M/s ABC Express*. The petitioner’s request was therefore allowed subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its availability for trial.
pp. 2–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon 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.
pp. 4–5The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
pp. 4–5Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restriction on transfer.
pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
DAFDA SURAJ MANUBHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
