Gujarat HC Orders Seized Car Released In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Law Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Maruti Suzuki car, registration No. GJ-17-CA-5594, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Himmatnagar “A” Division Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held 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 order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention in light of the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai and the authority to order interim custody under Section 497 BNSS.

It accepted that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to release, relying on M/s ABC Express and the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat.

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer pending 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; these were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the RTO, which was to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court.