Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Registered Owner’s Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Subject To Surety And No-Transfer Undertaking

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Swift VXI, sought its interim release after police seized it in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on documents showing that the vehicle’s finance and hypothecation had been terminated.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The petition invoked Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court relied on Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, concerning interim custody of property.

It applied the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that seized vehicles should not remain unattended in police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

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

It also relied on 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 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court accepted that the vehicle was registered to the petitioner and noted the documents concerning termination of the financing arrangement.

Although the State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions, it did not dispute the High Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interaction between interim-custody powers and Section 98(2), the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent release pending trial.

Safeguards—including a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, and an obligation to produce it—could protect the proceedings.

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; the photographs and panchnama were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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