Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Swift Seized In Liquor Case Pending Trial, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift (HR-17-C-5600), sought interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 8 July 2026, and the Sessions Judge dismissed his revision on 3 August 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that continued detention could cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a no-objection certificate from its finance company.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The judgment also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as authority for release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

The judgment also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which it states held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The High Court considered the petitioner to be the vehicle’s registered owner and noted that the vehicle risked deterioration if retained in custody.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, it concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, provided adequate safeguards were imposed.

The finance company’s no-objection certificate was also on record.

The Court therefore directed release subject to security, non-transfer and production conditions, together with documentation of the vehicle’s condition.

The vehicle was ordered to be released 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 agreeing to produce it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order is to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.