Gujarat HC Orders Seized Royal Enfield Released On Conditions, Citing SC: Gujarat Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the motorcycle was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it whenever directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

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

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Royal Enfield motorcycle, registration No. GJ-06-QC-4449, after receiving secret information that it was carrying contraband. The search allegedly found contraband being transported without a pass or permit, leading to registration of C.R. No. 11197005250863 of 2025 at Vadodara Taluka Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the seized motorcycle on interim custody, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the petitioner’s motorcycle should be released on specified safeguards pending trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023.

p. 1

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not remain unattended and deteriorate at police stations; courts may order their interim release on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–3

The judgment also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which it described as holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 3

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

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 Court considered the State’s confiscation objection but noted that the statutory provision did not create an absolute bar to interim custody, and the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

pp. 2–3

Applying the principles against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody, and following the cited decisions, the Court found release appropriate subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle and ensuring its availability for trial.

pp. 2–4