Gujarat HC Orders Seized Kia Seltos Released On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar to Interim Custody

Police seized the petitioner’s Kia Seltos, registration No. GJ-08-CC-4572, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Tharad Police Station under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle; the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought release under Articles 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, relying, among other matters, on the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody and producing the finance company’s no-objection certificate.

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

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 returned on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, including while an application for their return is pending.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

Further, as described by the High Court, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, it concluded that Section 98(2) did not create an absolute bar to interim release and that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

It therefore granted release subject to conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer and ensure its availability for 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 from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.