Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Swift car, registration No. GJ-35-H-6627, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Bakor Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The vehicle’s petitioner sought its release, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Section 497 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order release for proper custody (*M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat*, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885).

In *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on suitable bond, guarantee and security.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in *Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat*, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227.

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation under the Prohibition Act did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

Keeping the vehicle at the police station risked its deterioration, while appropriate safeguards could secure its production and preserve its status pending trial.

The Court therefore allowed release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

It also required photographs and a panchnama before release and directed that the RTO be notified of the restraint on transfer.

The police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; both must form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the transfer restriction, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Because the vehicle was hypothecated, the petitioner’s advocate was required to provide the original NOC within the stipulated period, and the Registry was directed to issue the writ only upon receipt.