Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Liquor-Case Maruti Eeco On Price-Equivalent Surety, Bars Transfer Until Trial Ends

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order 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 Trial Court or concerned 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 the trial concludes, and undertaking to produce it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence, pre-release photographs and panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, and intimation to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Maruti Suzuki EECO, registration No. GJ-35-AA-4064, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Virpur Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The vehicle’s petitioner sought its release; he produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate. The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.

p. 2 · ¶ 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

p. 2 · ¶ 5 · p. 3 · ¶ 8

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its availability and preserving evidence.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12

03Law Applied

The Court relied on Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as bases for considering interim custody of the seized vehicle.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

It referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which discourages leaving seized vehicles to deteriorate at police stations and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2 · ¶ 6

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 absolutely bar interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8

Provisions 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 that the vehicle’s continued retention risked deterioration and that the applicable confiscation provision did not create an absolute bar to interim release. Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, it found that the vehicle could be released while securing its production and preventing its transfer pending trial.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–11

It also directed that photographs and a panchnama be prepared before release to preserve evidence for trial.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–11