01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Hyundai i20 Asta CRDI seized in connection with an FIR registered at Mehsana Taluka Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2Police had intercepted the vehicle on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2The petitioner relied on a finance company’s no-objection certificate and sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 2–4ii.2. Whether the seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards pending trial.
pp. 2–403Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property in a proper case.
pp. 1–2Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.
pp. 1, 3–4The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police-station premises and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee and security.
p. 2It 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, 1949 does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.
pp. 3–4The Court additionally referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where vehicle release was ordered under Articles 226 and 227.
pp. 2–3Provisions 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 considered the petitioner’s request, the finance company’s NOC, the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions, and the authorities permitting interim custody of seized vehicles.
pp. 2–4It accepted that the prohibition-law provisions did not impose an absolute embargo on release and that continued retention could result in deterioration of the vehicle.
pp. 3–5It therefore ordered release subject to conditions intended to preserve the vehicle and ensure its availability for trial.
pp. 3–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the concerned Trial Court or authority was directed to release the Hyundai i20 upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before 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.
p. 4The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any permission granted by the Trial Court.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
PRAVINJI CHAMANJI THAKORvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
