Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Bike Seized In Liquor Case On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed. The Court directed release of the motorcycle upon compliance with the stated conditions, including furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR and undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal.

It also directed

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hero Splendor+ motorcycle, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1 · p. 3

The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected his release application on 15 July 2026, and the Sessions Judge dismissed his revision on 22 July 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 3–4

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner, and, if so, on what safeguards.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the Court’s authority over custody of seized property.

p. 1

It referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–4

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

It also relied on 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 and that the Court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 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 Court considered the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate if left in police custody.

pp. 2–3

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited Supreme Court ruling, the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release and that appropriate conditions could secure the vehicle’s production and preserve it pending trial.

p. 4

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, an obligation to produce it when directed, and a condition concerning confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

p. 5

05Holding

p. 5

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer.

p. 5

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF