Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Car Seized In Alleged Liquor Case Pending Trial, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

Police intercepted a Swift car, registration No. GJ-08-FB-0266, on secret information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, leading to an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the car’s registered owner, sought its release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 528 and 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial; Section 528 of the BNSS was also invoked by the petitioner.

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 appropriate bond, guarantee, or security.

The Court 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 absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle was being kept in police custody pending proceedings.

Applying Sunderbhai, the Court considered it inappropriate to leave the vehicle unattended and exposed to deterioration.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to reject the view that the prohibition law’s confiscation provisions create an absolute bar to interim release. The Court therefore ordered release subject to safeguards designed to secure the vehicle’s preservation, availability for trial, and non-transfer.

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; those materials were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the Trial Court.