Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Hyundai Car Seized In Liquor Case Against Surety Equal To Its FIR-Stated Value

Police intercepted a Hyundai car, registration No. GJ-01-KD-5014, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, leading to an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property; the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and its power under Section 497 of the BNSS concerning custody and disposal of property.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court advised against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate in police stations and supported interim release against appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, was cited as an analogous release order.

The Court also relied on 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 create an absolute bar to interim release and that the 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 of deterioration while the vehicle remained in police custody, as addressed in Sunderbhai, and the analogous approach in Musa Khan Jat.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not absolutely prevent interim release.

In light of those principles, it found release appropriate subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated 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, with both included in 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 permitting transfer.