Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Thar Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Imposes No Absolute Bar On Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence despite the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered released to the petitioner on his furnishing a 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 when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra Thar bearing registration No. GJ-06-RA-7773, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 6 June 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 16 July 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner argued that the vehicle would deteriorate if left in police custody and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2

He invoked the High Court’s constitutional and inherent jurisdiction.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence despite the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether, in the circumstances, the seized vehicle should be released to its registered owner on conditions pending trial.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including interim release of seized property; the petitioner also invoked the Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

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 proper interim custody under Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court recognised that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate at police stations, and may be handed over subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as an instance of vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227, and on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat concerning interim custody notwithstanding Section 98(2).

pp. 3–4

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 Court found that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and had produced the financier’s no-objection certificate.

p. 2, 3

It considered the risk of deterioration from prolonged police custody and applied the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release.

pp. 3–4

The State opposed release by reference to the confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release where appropriate; it left the matter to the Court.

p. 3

The Court therefore ordered release subject to conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s preservation and availability for trial.

p. 5