Gujarat HC Orders Scooter Seized In Liquor Case Returned To Registered Owner On Surety, Says Prohibition Act Does Not Absolutely Bar Interim Release

Police seized the petitioner’s Suzuki Access motorcycle, registration No. GJ-27-DX-9733, after alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Nilambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 83 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The petitioner’s application for release of the motorcycle was rejected by the Magistrate on 11 May 2026, and her revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 30 June 2026.

The petitioner sought release under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She also produced the financer bank’s no-objection certificate.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the interim custody and proper preservation of property pending trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court advised against keeping seized vehicles unattended at police stations and endorsed release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227, and on the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat concerning the interaction between interim-custody powers and Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized motorcycle, and the bank’s no-objection certificate addressed the vehicle’s financing.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court held that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release and that leaving the motorcycle in police custody risked its deterioration.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it during trial, and an obligation to produce it when required; it also directed that the vehicle be photographed and documented before release.

The police were directed to photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.