01Facts
The petitioner sought interim release of a Hyundai Accent GLE seized in connection with an FIR registered at Vapi Town Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2Police alleged that the vehicle was carrying contraband without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a coordinate Bench decision; the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 4–602Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 8–9ii.If so, on what conditions the seized vehicle should be released pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 1003Law Applied
The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
p. 1 · ¶ 1Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee and security.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, as holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.
p. 4 · ¶ 8Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the vehicle was seized in a prohibition-law prosecution but concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it considered release appropriate subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer during trial.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–1005Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or competent authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until trial concludes, and producing it whenever directed.
p. 4 · ¶ 10The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4 · ¶ 10Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5 · ¶ 11The order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer; the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receipt of the original NOC.
p. 5 · ¶ 12–14Original Court PDF
KAMALBHAI MADANBHAI PATEL (KAMALKUMAR MADANLAL PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
