Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Bus Seized In Liquor Case Against Surety Equal To Its FIR-Stated Value

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Tata Bus bearing registration No. MP-14-ZH-7773, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 81, 83 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

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

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial; Section 528 preserves the High Court’s inherent powers.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under the corresponding provision of the BNSS.

The petitioner was the bus’s registered owner, and the financing bank had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

The Court considered the risk of deterioration if the vehicle remained in custody, applying the principle in Sunderbhai that seized vehicles should not be allowed to become junk.

It further relied on the cited Supreme Court decision to conclude that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release, and noted the State’s acceptance that release could be ordered in an appropriate case.

The Court therefore ordered release subject to conditions designed to preserve the vehicle and ensure its availability to the trial court.

The trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the bus 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.

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.