Gujarat HC Orders Seized Creta Returned To Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hyundai Creta seized in connection with an FIR under Sections 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its interim release.

The Magistrate rejected his application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced the finance company’s no-objection certificate for its release.

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing interim custody of property, corresponds to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and that courts may release them on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, while retaining the power to require their return.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, now Section 497 BNSS.

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and its continued detention risked deterioration.

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court held that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release subject to safeguards.

It also noted the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court therefore considered release appropriate, while requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and documentation of its condition for trial.

The Court directed release of the Hyundai Creta upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and agreeing to produce it when directed; it further ordered that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.