Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Ertiga Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police intercepted an Ertiga bearing registration No. RJ-27-TB-1498 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 Himmatnagar “A” Division Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release where appropriate.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including orders concerning interim custody of seized property.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning custody and disposal 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 appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their return when required.

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

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 and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).

The Court considered the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody and applied the principles in Sunderbhai favouring release on safeguards.

It also relied on ABC Express to conclude that the confiscation provision in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

In the circumstances, release was appropriate subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, an obligation to produce it when directed, and a consequence of confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer; the Rule was made absolute.