01Facts
The petitioner sought release of Truck No. GJ-02-Y-7080, seized in connection with an FIR registered at Rangpur Police Station, Chhota Udepur.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The prosecution alleged that the truck was carrying stones without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The petitioner relied on the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat; the State objected by reference to confiscation provisions but did not dispute the Court’s power to order release.
p. 2 · ¶ 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized truck in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, notwithstanding the State’s objection based on confiscation provisions.
p. 2 · ¶ 4–6ii.2. Whether the truck should be released subject to safeguards for its preservation and production during the proceedings.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 7–1003Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the Court also referred to its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
p. 1 · ¶ 1In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security, with provision for their return when required.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7The Court also relied on coordinate-bench decisions releasing vehicles under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 2 · ¶ 6Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 221Section 132Section 351Section 352Section 54
Gujarat Police Act, 1951. Section 135
04Reasoning
The truck had been seized in connection with the alleged unauthorised transportation of stones, but the Court considered that retaining it at the police station risked deterioration.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–10Applying Sunderbhai and the cited coordinate-bench decisions, the Court exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to permit release while imposing conditions to secure the vehicle’s value and availability for trial.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–10These included a solvent surety and personal bond of 1.5 times the vehicle’s value, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production whenever directed.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–1005Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the truck subject to the specified bond, undertaking and production conditions.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–12Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; both were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–12The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–12The Court further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–12Original Court PDF
GHANKA KHUMANSING MANSINGvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
