Gujarat HC Orders Rickshaw’s Release In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling Gujarat Prohibition Act’s Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of a rickshaw financed by IndusInd Bank Limited, sought its release after police seized it in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The financier had issued a no-objection certificate for release of the vehicle.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 528 and 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

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

Section 497 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits the Court to make appropriate orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

In M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Supreme Court held 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 its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court relied on the petitioner’s ownership and the financier’s NOC, and considered the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate if kept in police custody.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interaction between Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and interim-custody powers, the Court found that the confiscation provision did not prevent release pending trial.

It addressed the need to preserve the vehicle’s availability and prevent transfer by imposing surety, undertaking, production and documentation requirements.

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 and prepare a panchanama; the order was also to be sent to the RTO for an entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.