Gujarat HC Orders Seized Ertiga Released To Owner On Conditions In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

In brief

The question

1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released to its registered owner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner, 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.

It also directed

The Court further directed that photographs be taken and a panchnama prepared before release, and that the order be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restriction on transfer.

The order also provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga financed by Bank of Baroda, sought interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The financier had issued a No Objection Certificate. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought relief under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released to its registered owner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether release should be made subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle’s availability and the trial process.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including interim release of seized property.

p. 4

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, enables a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

p. 4

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 in police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–3

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner established ownership and produced the financier’s NOC, while the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions did not preclude interim release.

pp. 2–5

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interaction between Section 451 CrPC (now Section 497 BNSS) and Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the Court concluded that the vehicle need not remain in police custody pending trial.

pp. 2–5

Its availability and preservation could instead be secured through a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and police photographs and a panchnama.

pp. 2–5

05Holding

pp. 4–5

The Court further directed that photographs be taken and a panchnama prepared before release, and that the order be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restriction on transfer.

pp. 4–5

The order also provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

pp. 4–5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF