Gujarat HC Orders Swift Seized in Liquor Case Released to Petitioner Pending Trial Against Surety Equal to FIR-Stated Price

The petitioner sought interim release of a Maruti Swift seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Bakor 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 (BNSS), relying on the need to prevent seized vehicles from deteriorating while in police custody.

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

The Court relied on Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, which it considered alongside Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), concerning interim custody of property.

It referred to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police custody and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It 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.

Finally, citing M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release, and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court considered the State’s confiscation-based objection but noted that the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

The principles in Sunderbhai supported avoiding prolonged retention and deterioration of the vehicle, while the decision in M/s ABC Express addressed the interaction between interim custody and the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

Applying those principles, the Court ordered release subject to conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, and ensure its production when required.

The order further states that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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

Rule was made absolute.