01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj Pulsar 125, sought interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an FIR alleging transportation of liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4His application for release was rejected by the Magistrate, and his revision against that order was dismissed by the Sessions Court.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4The petitioner argued that continued police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a financier’s No Objection Certificate confirming that there were no overdue amounts.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4The State opposed release by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1–4The High Court also noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner.
p. 3 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 3–4, 8ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner pending trial, and, if so, on what conditions.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6–1003Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.
p. 2 · ¶ 3Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 8The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 8The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a vehicle had been released under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3 · ¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle was liable to deteriorate if kept in police custody.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6–10The High Court applied Sunderbhai’s concern about vehicles becoming junk and M/s ABC Express’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute impediment to interim custody.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6–10It therefore concluded that release was appropriate, subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 6–1005Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court/concerned authority was directed to release the Bajaj Pulsar 125 upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it whenever directed.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13The order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13The Rule was made absolute.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Original Court PDF
ROHIT LALSINGH MASANIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
