Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Maruti Eeco Seized With Contraband, Says Prohibition Law Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. 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 Maruti Eeco upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and producing it when directed; the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

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

The order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

The petitioner was also directed to provide the original NOC within one week, and the Registry was to issue the writ only after receiving it.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Maruti Eeco, registration No. GJ-21-CD-4366, on secret information and allegedly found it carrying prohibited contraband without a pass or permit.

p. 1

An FIR was registered at Vesu Police Station, Surat, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, relying on the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat; the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions pending trial.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–3

It also followed the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which had ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 2

The Court further relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the court may make appropriate custody orders.

p. 4

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 accepted that the vehicle had been seized in connection with an alleged Prohibition Act offence but held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

pp. 2–5

The Supreme Court’s guidance in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, together with the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat, supported release subject to safeguards.

pp. 2–5

The Court therefore balanced preservation of the vehicle and its availability for trial against the risk of transfer or subsequent misuse by imposing security, undertaking, production and confiscation conditions.

pp. 2–5