01Facts
Police intercepted the petitioner’s motorcycle, registration No. GJ-25-AE-9208, on information that it was carrying liquor.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, leading to registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2The petitioner sought release of the motorcycle, invoking Articles 226, 14 and 19 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226.
p. 2 · ¶ 502Issues
i.Whether the seized motorcycle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 2, 4 · ¶ 5, 8ii.If so, what terms and safeguards should govern its release.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7, 10–1203Law Applied
Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the Court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 8The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which cautioned against keeping seized vehicles unused at police stations and supported their interim release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 8The Court also noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, releasing a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3 · ¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the motorcycle had been seized in a prohibition offence, but concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it found that the vehicle could be released subject to safeguards ensuring its preservation and availability for trial.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–10Those safeguards included security equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and an obligation to produce it when directed.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 7–1005Holding
The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the motorcycle on the stated conditions: the petitioner must furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it as directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4 · ¶ 10Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5 · ¶ 11A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
p. 5 · ¶ 12Rule was made absolute.
p. 5 · ¶ 13Original Court PDF
RUDABHAI KARMANBHAI ULVAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
