Gujarat HC Orders Seized CNG Rickshaw Returned To Owner In Liquor Case, Subject To Bond And No-Transfer Conditions

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed release of the rickshaw upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The Court further ordered that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; that police photograph it from all sides and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost; and that the order be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s CNG rickshaw, registration No. GJ-27-TA-0981, in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, after liquor was allegedly found in the vehicle

p. 1

The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle; the Sessions Judge dismissed his revision

p. 2

The petitioner sought release before the High Court, submitting that continued detention could cause the vehicle to deteriorate and producing a no-objection certificate from the finance company

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner, and, if so, on what safeguards and conditions

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution permit the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court advised against allowing seized vehicles to remain unattended and deteriorate, and recognised release against appropriate bonds, guarantees and security

pp. 2–3

The High Court 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 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS

p. 4

The Court referred as well to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the finance company had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

p. 2 · p. 3

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court treated the possibility of deterioration during prolonged police custody and the absence of an absolute statutory bar as grounds supporting interim release. It considered release appropriate subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer pending trial

pp. 3–5