Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Car Seized In Liquor Case To Owner, Against Full-Value Surety And No Transfer Until Trial Ends

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner on conditions that he provide a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence

It also directed

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. The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Maruti Suzuki S-Cross in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act after liquor was allegedly found in the vehicle

p. 1

The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision

p. 2

The petitioner sought release under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying, among other things, on the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody and a financier’s no-objection certificate

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the seized vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property, permits orders for proper custody; the Court noted that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police custody and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security

pp. 2–4

The Court also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court had released a vehicle by exercising its constitutional powers

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court accepted that continued storage at the police station risked its deterioration

pp. 2, 3–4

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court held that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release. It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, and a requirement to produce the vehicle when directed, while also requiring photographs and a panchnama to preserve evidence

pp. 4–5