Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Swift Seized In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Law Does Not Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or authority concerned was directed to release the Maruti Suzuki Swift VXI to the petitioner upon his 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 producing it whenever directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO, which was to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Swift VXI, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR C.R. No. 11216012250249 of 2026.

pp. 1–2

His applications for release before the lower courts had been rejected.

pp. 1–2

He argued that continued retention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced a no-objection certificate from Mahindra Finance, the vehicle’s hypothecatee.

pp. 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preservation for trial.

pp. 1–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order interim release of seized property.

pp. 3–4

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property, reflects the power to make appropriate custody orders; the Court also referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

pp. 3–4

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 released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security, subject to their production when required.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court ordered release in similar circumstances.

p. 3

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held 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

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and considered the risk that continued police custody would result in deterioration.

pp. 1–4

It noted the finance company’s no-objection certificate and applied Sunderbhai’s principle against prolonged retention of vehicles.

pp. 1–4

Further, M/s ABC Express confirmed that Section 98(2) did not absolutely preclude interim release.

pp. 1–4

The Court therefore considered release appropriate, subject to security, non-transfer, and production requirements that would protect the trial process.

pp. 1–4