Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Subject To Vehicle-Value Surety And No-Transfer Undertaking

Police seized the petitioner’s Maruti Suzuki Swift, registration No. GJ-31-BB-0206, after allegedly finding liquor in the vehicle.

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody and producing the financier bank’s no-objection certificate

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

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 in police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

The High Court 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, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also referred to its coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the bank had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

The Court considered the risk of deterioration from prolonged police custody and held that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it found that the vehicle could be returned subject to safeguards securing its preservation and availability for trial.

The Court directed release of the Maruti Suzuki Swift upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed; it further ordered that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A 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.