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

Police intercepted a Maruti Alto K10, registration No. GJ-24-K-4522, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. A search allegedly found the driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit, leading to registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers 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 be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bond, guarantee and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, 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 a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, now Section 497 BNSS.

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the Court considered that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked deterioration, as recognised in Sunderbhai.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that the confiscation provision did not categorically prevent interim release pending trial.

The Court therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and an obligation to produce it when directed. Photographs and a panchnama were required to preserve evidence, and the RTO was to be notified of the transfer restriction.

The petitioner must furnish the required surety, undertake not to transfer the vehicle pending trial, and produce it when directed; the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, and the RTO must record notice of the transfer restriction.

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