Gujarat HC Orders Renault Triber Seized In Liquor Case Released On Surety, Says Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner on the specified conditions.

It also directed

The Court made the Rule absolute and permitted direct service.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Renault Triber, registration No. MH-18-BX-0977, on secret information that it was carrying liquor.

¶ 2 · p. 2

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, leading to an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 2 · p. 2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle and produced a no-objection certificate from the finance company.

¶ 4 · p. 2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

¶ 5 · p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

¶ 5, 8 · pp. 2–3

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

¶ 7–10 · pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1 · p. 1

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

¶ 7 · p. 3

It also relied on 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 and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

¶ 8 · p. 3

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

¶ 6 · p. 2

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

The Court considered the risk that a vehicle kept at a police station would deteriorate, and applied the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express to conclude that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

¶ 7–8 · p. 3

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

¶ 10 · p. 4

Photographs and a panchnama were required before release, and the RTO was to record the restraint on transfer.

¶ 11–12 · pp. 4–5