Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act bars interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case pending trial.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal 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 also directed

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO, with transfer restrained until final disposal of the trial unless the Trial Court permitted otherwise.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift seized in connection with an FIR under Sections 65(e) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its release as muddamal.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner argued that continued police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced the financier’s no-objection certificate.

pp. 1–2

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release where appropriate.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act bars interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case pending trial.

p. 4

ii.2. Whether the seized vehicle should be released to the petitioner on conditions to preserve it and secure its production during trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), a court may make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

p. 4

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

p. 4

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 at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 3–4

The High Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle was at risk of deterioration if kept in police custody.

p. 2 · p. 3

The financier had also issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2 · p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo, the Court concluded that interim release was permissible notwithstanding the confiscation provisions.

pp. 3–5

Conditions securing the vehicle’s preservation and future production could protect the prosecution’s interests.

pp. 3–5