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

Police intercepted a Celerio, registration No. GJ-34-H-3016, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Panigate Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle by invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition 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 grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate at police stations; courts should consider interim release subject to suitable bonds, guarantees and 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 impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and does not prevent the court from exercising its custody powers under Section 451 CrPC.

A coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, was also cited in support of release under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court treated the possibility of confiscation under the Prohibition Act as insufficient, by itself, to prevent interim release.

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked deterioration and that the court could safeguard its availability and the prosecution’s interests through appropriate conditions.

The Court therefore found release appropriate, subject to security, restrictions on transfer, production of the vehicle when required, and documentation of its condition.

The order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchnama, to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer; if the vehicle is hypothecated, the original NOC must be provided to the Registry before issuance of the writ.