Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Maruti Ciaz Seized In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Law Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of his Maruti Ciaz, registration No. GJ-01-RJ-4104, seized after police allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Kheroj Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 concerns custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be entrusted to an owner or other appropriate person on suitable bond, guarantee, and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat for release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release; 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 that the seized vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody, the petitioner’s reliance on Sunderbhai and the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat, and the finance company’s no-objection certificate.

It concluded, consistently with M/s ABC Express, that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

The vehicle could therefore be released while preserving its availability and evidentiary value through a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and police photographs and a panchnama.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.