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

Police intercepted a Hyundai Creta, registration No. GJ-09-BN-2199, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

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

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle under 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.

Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief and exercise supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

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, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Sunderbhai and the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat, alongside the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim release.

It concluded that the vehicle could be released subject to safeguards securing its production, preventing its transfer pending trial, and preserving evidence of its condition through photographs and a panchnama.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers, and a copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Because the vehicle was hypothecated, the petitioner was directed to provide the original NOC to the Registry within the time specified; the Registry was to issue the writ only after receiving it.