Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Goods Vehicle Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act 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 and the vehicle was ordered to be released, subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial concludes, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The Court further directed that the vehicle be confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; that police photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost before release; and that the order be sent to the RTO for entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a three-wheeler goods vehicle (No. GJ-01-TK-8501), sought its release after it was seized in an alleged liquor-transportation offence registered under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–3

The Magistrate rejected the release application on 25 June 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 10 August 2026.

pp. 1–3

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 1–3

He then invoked Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

p. 1

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. 4–5

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards pending trial.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

p. 3

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over subject to appropriate bonds, security and an obligation to produce them when required.

p. 3

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which it cited for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

It additionally referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle by exercising constitutional powers.

p. 3

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 83 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and had produced the financier’s no-objection certificate.

p. 2, 4

Applying Sunderbhai’s concern about deterioration of vehicles kept in police custody, and the cited ABC Express ruling that Section 98(2) is not an absolute impediment to interim release, the Court concluded that release could be ordered while preserving the vehicle’s availability and the prosecution’s interests through conditions.

pp. 3–5