Gujarat HC Orders Seized Truck Released Against Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

The petitioner, acting as power-of-attorney holder of the registered owner, sought release of an Ashok Leyland vehicle, registration No. RJ-07-GD-5907, seized after police allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Gandhidham ‘B’ Division Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim release of the vehicle.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and the Court also referred to its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and its powers under Section 497 of the BNSS.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and does not prevent the court from exercising its custody powers under Section 451 CrPC.

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

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention against the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provision does not absolutely preclude interim release.

It therefore held that the vehicle could be released while preserving the interests of the trial and any eventual confiscation proceedings through appropriate safeguards.

The vehicle was directed to be handed over only to the registered owner after verification, with conditions requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, and production of the vehicle when directed.

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the trial court; the Registry was to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.