01Facts
Police intercepted a Suzuki Access 125 bearing registration No. GJ-34-R-7939 after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, leading to an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 3–6 · pp. 1–2The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release and produced a financier’s No Objection Certificate dated 31 August 2026.
¶ 3–6 · pp. 1–2The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.
¶ 7 · p. 302Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, notwithstanding the Gujarat Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.
¶ 3, 7–10 · pp. 1, 3–4ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation pending trial.
¶ 6, 9, 12–14 · pp. 2–503Law Applied
The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which it identified as corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning interim custody of property.
¶ 8–10 · pp. 3–4Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left deteriorating at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
¶ 8–10 · pp. 3–4It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle.
¶ 8–10 · pp. 3–4The Court referred to the coordinate bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, as an instance of release under Articles 226 and 227.
¶ 8–10 · pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The petitioner was the registered owner and had produced the financier’s NOC permitting release.
¶ 6 · p. 2The State’s reliance on the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release: the Court considered that Section 98(2) was not an absolute embargo and that the vehicle could be kept in proper custody subject to conditions.
¶ 7, 10 · pp. 3–4In light of the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai, the Court ordered release while requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and documentation of its condition.
¶ 9, 12–14 · pp. 3–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.
¶ 11–15 · pp. 4–5The Court further directed that, before release, police take photographs and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these are to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
¶ 11–15 · pp. 4–5A copy of the order is to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
¶ 11–15 · pp. 4–5The order also states that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
¶ 11–15 · pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
RATHVA YOGESHBHAI GANJIBHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
