Gujarat HC Orders Seized Autorickshaw Released To Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

Police seized the petitioner’s Bajaj Maxima Z CNG autorickshaw, registration No. GJ-10-TZ-3997, in connection with a prohibition offence registered as C.R. No. 11202002261368 of 2026 at City C-Division Police Station, Jamnagar.

The petitioner’s applications for release of the vehicle before the lower courts were rejected.

He sought its release before the High Court, submitting that continued retention risked deterioration and producing a no-objection certificate from Mahindra Finance, which held a hypothecation over the vehicle.

The Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its reference to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which discourages prolonged retention of seized vehicles at police stations and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle in comparable circumstances.

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, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release 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.

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the Court considered the risk that continued police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate, as well as the financier’s no-objection certificate.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

It therefore ordered release subject to conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production when required, and preserve evidence for trial.

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 panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was also to be sent to the RTO for a corresponding entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.