Gujarat HC Orders Release of Trailer Seized in Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle under its constitutional jurisdiction, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was directed to be released on conditions that the petitioner provide solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until the trial concludes, and produce it whenever 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 and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost.

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.

01Facts

Police seized a Tata Motors LPS 3518 trailer, registration No. RJ-19-GC-2295, after allegedly finding liquor being transported without a pass or permit.

p. 1

An FIR was registered under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 1

The application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Magistrate on 10 July 2026, and the revision against that order was dismissed on 7 September 2026.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release, arguing that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

p. 1

The registered owner, Mohanram, had died; his heirs had executed a general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle under its constitutional jurisdiction, notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to prevent deterioration while preserving its availability for trial and any eventual confiscation.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–4

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

pp. 2–4

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–4

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

pp. 2–4

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR and was at risk of deterioration if retained in custody.

pp. 3–5

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, the Court concluded that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be returned subject to safeguards ensuring its production and preserving the court’s ability to deal with it at trial.

pp. 3–5