Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Hyundai Seized In Liquor Case On FIR-Price Surety, Bars Transfer Until Trial Ends

The petitioner sought interim release of his Hyundai car, registration No. GJ-03-JC-4541, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Atkot Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s powers 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 Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) enables orders for proper custody of property pending trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which counsels against leaving seized vehicles unattended and permits their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The vehicle had been seized in a prohibition case, but the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, and noting the coordinate Bench’s approach in Musa Khan Jat, the Court concluded that the vehicle could be released subject to safeguards preserving its availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.

It required security equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking against transfer, and production of the vehicle when directed; it also ordered photographic documentation and a panchnama before release.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute; direct service was permitted.