Gujarat HC Orders Release Of Xylo Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner 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.

It also directed

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Mahindra Xylo, registered as GJ-02-BD-4078, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81 and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949

pp. 1–2

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bodeli, on 29 May 2026; his revision was rejected by the Additional District Judge, Bodeli, on 7 August 2026

p. 2

He then sought release of the vehicle under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution, Section 99 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

p. 2 · p. 4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner on conditions to prevent deterioration while preserving its availability for trial

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case

p. 1 · pp. 2–3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left unattended to deteriorate and that interim custody may be ordered on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with the vehicle to be returned when required

p. 3

The judgment also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227

p. 3

It further cited M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 99 Section 65 Section 98 Section 81

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the prohibition offence

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, it considered that continued detention risked the vehicle’s deterioration and that the confiscation provision did not, by itself, prevent interim release

pp. 3–4

The Court therefore found release appropriate, subject to security and safeguards ensuring that the vehicle remained available and was not transferred pending trial

p. 4