Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Car Seized In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98 Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Maruti Swift, registration No. RJ-27-CP-6477, after receiving information that it was carrying contraband. The search allegedly revealed contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Bakor Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the principle against keeping seized vehicles in police custody for prolonged periods and producing a bank/finance company certificate stating that it had no objection to release.

p. 2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release under Article 226.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on interim custody, and, if so, on what conditions.

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate in police-station premises; courts may release them on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

pp. 3–4

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, where the High Court ordered vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

Finally, it cited M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release, and that the court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court considered the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions but relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) did not absolutely prevent interim release of the seized vehicle.

p. 2, 4

Applying the approach in Sunderbhai, it found that the vehicle need not remain in police custody pending trial and could be released subject to safeguards securing its availability and preventing its transfer.

pp. 3–5

The finance company’s no-objection certificate was also before the Court.

p. 2