Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Seized Bolero, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding Section 98(2).

The court held

The petition was allowed.

It also directed

The Court directed release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a 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 when directed; it further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra Bolero bearing registration No. GJ-05-RD-4868, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(e), 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected the release application on 8 May 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 29 June 2026.

p. 1

The petitioner submitted that the vehicle risked deterioration while in police custody and placed on record the finance company’s no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2

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

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding Section 98(2).

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial.

pp. 2, 4–5

03Law Applied

The High Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and the power to provide for interim custody under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate, and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security for their return.

pp. 3–4

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. 4

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 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may make appropriate custody orders.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the finance company had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2, 4

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, the Court considered the risk that continued storage at the police station would cause deterioration and concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release.

pp. 3–5

It therefore found release appropriate, subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer during trial.

pp. 3–5