Gujarat HC Orders Seized Eeco Released To Registered Owner In Prohibition Case, Subject To Surety And No-Transfer Conditions

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki EECO seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, sought its release on interim custody.

The seizure was connected with FIR C.R. No. 11821035261113/2026.

The petitioner invoked Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed release, relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

The Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and a coordinate Bench decision, as well as a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the interaction between Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act and interim custody of seized vehicles.

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

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

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 at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The 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, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the Court considered that continued storage at a police station could cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

The State’s reliance on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release: applying M/s ABC Express, the Court treated Section 98(2) as no absolute embargo on release and relied on the court’s power to ensure proper custody pending trial.

It therefore ordered release subject to security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when required, and other safeguards.

The petitioner must provide a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

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

Rule was made absolute.