01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle (registration No. GJ-20-BL-5699), sought its release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. C.R. 11821014260464/2026.
¶ 2–3 · p. 2The State objected, relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226 when appropriate.
¶ 6 · p. 2The petitioner sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
¶ 2 · p. 102Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition offence notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 2, 6, 9 · pp. 1–3ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preservation for trial.
¶ 5, 8–9 · pp. 2–303Law Applied
The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023, concerning custody of seized property.
¶ 2 · p. 1Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.
¶ 8 · pp. 3–4It 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, is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.
¶ 9 · p. 4The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.
¶ 7 · p. 3Provisions 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 was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the Supreme Court authorities established that the confiscation provisions did not impose an absolute bar on interim release.
¶ 5, 8–9 · pp. 2–4Keeping the motorcycle at the police station risked deterioration, while appropriate security and conditions could protect the trial’s interests.
¶ 8–9 · pp. 3–4The Court therefore ordered release 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 provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
¶ 11–12 · pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner on the stated conditions.
¶ 10–11 · p. 4Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
¶ 12 · p. 5A copy of the order must be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission from the trial court; the Rule was made absolute.
¶ 13–14 · p. 5Original Court PDF
ARJUNBHAI ANOPBHAI HATHILAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
