01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Mahindra Bolero seized after police intercepted it on secret information and found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.
p. 1An FIR was registered at Karjan Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 1The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
p. 1The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–3ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions securing its preservation and production during trial.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Section 497 of the BNSS provides for interim custody of property.
pp. 2–3In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 2–3Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, the Court stated 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 make appropriate custody orders under the corresponding provision of the CrPC, now Section 497 of the BNSS.
p. 3The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 2Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court considered that the vehicle’s seizure in a prohibition case did not, by itself, prevent interim release.
pp. 2–3The State’s confiscation objection was answered by the principle in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.
pp. 2–3Applying Sunderbhai, the Court found it appropriate to avoid prolonged retention of the vehicle and ordered its release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.
pp. 2–505Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the stated conditions.
pp. 4–5Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
JATIN ANILBHAI MACHHIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
