Gujarat HC Orders Skoda Seized In Liquor Case Released On Surety, Says Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought interim release of his Skoda car, registration No. GJ-13-CD-5554, seized after police intercepted it on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Kuvadva Road 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 release of the vehicle.

The State opposed release by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Prohibition Act, but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

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

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for orders concerning custody and disposal of property.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention against the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Section 98(2) does not absolutely bar interim release.

Given those principles and the State’s acknowledgment of the High Court’s power to order release, the Court granted interim custody 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.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court; the Rule was made absolute.