Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Bolero Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Mahindra Bolero seized after police allegedly found its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Anjar Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case, and Article 227 provides supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns custody and disposal of property pending trial.

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

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 releasing a seized vehicle on interim custody pending trial, and that the court may make appropriate orders for its custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court cited Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as a coordinate-bench decision releasing a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

The alleged use of the Bolero to transport liquor brought the vehicle within the dispute over confiscation under the Prohibition Act.

However, the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release: the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express confirmed that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

Applying the concern in Sunderbhai that vehicles left in police custody may deteriorate, and considering the coordinate-bench approach in Musa Khan Jat, the Court ordered release subject to conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s preservation and production for trial.

The Court further directed that the vehicle be photographed from all sides and a panchnama prepared at the petitioner’s expense before release, with those materials forming part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court; the Court also directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.