Gujarat HC Orders Seized Bajaj CNG Released On Surety, Says Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar to Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Bajaj Maxima CNG vehicle, registration No. GJ-03-CT-3923, seized after police allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Bhaktinagar Police Station, Rajkot City, under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers relevant to the Court’s consideration of release of seized property; Section 497 of the BNSS provides for interim custody of property and corresponds to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court advised against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and endorsed release against appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The judgment also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

It further referred to the coordinate bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody and the authorities supporting interim release against safeguards.

It held that Section 98(2) did not categorically prevent release and, following the cited decisions, ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it during trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

Photographs and a panchnama were also required to preserve evidence of the vehicle’s condition.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and a copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.