Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Ford Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

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. The Court directed release of the Ford Fiesta upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until conclusion of the trial, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation of the vehicle in the event of a subsequent offence. Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Ford Fiesta, registration No. GJ-04-AJ-0907, after allegedly finding liquor in it without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(e), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision. The petitioner then sought release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 497 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody.

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 petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner, was entitled to release subject to conditions securing its production and preserving the evidence.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer the High Court with powers to grant appropriate relief, including directions for release of seized property. Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial; the Supreme Court has recognised that the corresponding power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may be exercised to provide for proper custody of seized vehicles.

pp. 3–4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court cautioned against leaving vehicles at police stations to deteriorate and endorsed release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security. The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat (SCR.A/7190/2017) and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

pp. 3–4

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497 Section 528

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 considered the risk of its deterioration if left in police custody.

pp. 3–5

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court held that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release. It found that the vehicle could be released on conditions sufficient to secure its availability for trial, prevent its transfer and preserve evidence of its condition.

pp. 3–5