Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Ford Figo Seized In Liquor Case On Vehicle-Value Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Ford Figo seized in connection with an alleged Gujarat Prohibition Act offence, sought its release from custody.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle’s driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Chandkheda Police Station.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s constitutional powers and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

It referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which cautions against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and supports interim release subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, as described in the judgment, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may make custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).

The Court also noted a coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat.

The vehicle was subject to possible confiscation, but the Court treated that possibility as not automatically precluding interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that continued retention was unnecessary where the vehicle could be secured for the trial through conditions and documented before release.

It therefore required a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and production whenever directed; it also required photographs and a panchnama to preserve evidence of the vehicle’s condition.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must also be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any further order of the Trial Court.