Gujarat HC Orders Swift Seized In Liquor Case Released On Conditions, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar

Police seized the petitioner’s Maruti Suzuki Swift, registration No. GJ-01-RD-0754, after allegedly finding liquor in the vehicle without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 116-B and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought release before the High Court, relying, among other things, on the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate while in custody and a no-objection certificate from the finance company.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions 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 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits a court to make appropriate orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security; the High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk of its deterioration if it remained in police custody.

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, the Court held that the possibility of confiscation under Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release; the vehicle could instead be secured for trial through conditions.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s conclusion, production whenever directed, and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

The Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle subject to the stated conditions.

Before release, police were to photograph it from all sides at the petitioner’s expense and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

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