Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Car Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Maruti car bearing registration No. GJ-05-RU-2125 after receiving secret information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Vesu Police Station, Surat, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the car, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

The Court relied on its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the court’s interim-custody power under Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

It referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left unattended and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security to ensure their production when required.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released in an analogous case.

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 of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court considered the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody and the authorities supporting conditional interim release. Although the State invoked the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, it did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent release pending trial, provided safeguards were imposed to preserve the vehicle and secure its production.

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; the RTO was to be notified of the restraint on transfer.

Because the vehicle was hypothecated, the original NOC was to be provided to the Registry within “10 working week”; the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving it.

Rule was made absolute.