01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Hero Splendor motorcycle, sought its release after it had been seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11821014260304/2026.
p. 2 · ¶ 3He invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the Supreme Court’s guidance against leaving seized vehicles unattended and deteriorating at police stations.
p. 1 · ¶ 2 · p. 2 · ¶ 5The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.
p. 2 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prosecution under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
p. 2 · ¶ 6 · p. 4 · ¶ 9ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions to preserve it and ensure its availability for trial.
p. 2 · ¶ 5 · p. 4 · ¶ 9–1103Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the BNSS concerns interim custody of property.
The Court referred to the corresponding power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to make appropriate orders for the custody of seized property, and held—relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885—that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.
p. 4 · ¶ 9It also relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which stated that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations for long periods and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security, and on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8 · p. 3 · ¶ 7Provisions 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 State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release; its objection based on the confiscation provisions therefore did not establish an absolute bar.
p. 2 · ¶ 5–6Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that interim release was permissible while safeguarding the vehicle’s availability and evidentiary value through conditions, photographs, and a panchnama.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–1205Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent 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.
p. 4 · ¶ 11Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5 · ¶ 12The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer; the Rule was made absolute.
p. 5 · ¶ 13–14Original Court PDF
BHOPATBHAI DHIRABHAI CHAUHANvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
