Gujarat HC Orders Swift Seized In Liquor Case Returned To Petitioner Pending Trial On Surety Equal To FIR-Stated Value

The petitioner sought interim release of his Swift car, registration No. GJ-39-CC-9138, seized after police allegedly found its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Anjar Police Station for an offence 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 Act’s confiscation provisions, but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer constitutional and supervisory powers relevant to the Court’s consideration of release.

Section 497 of the BNSS, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

The Court relied on 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 stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

It also referred to M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court treated the vehicle’s potential deterioration in police custody as a reason against retaining it during trial, consistent with Sunderbhai.

It considered the State’s reliance on the prohibition-law confiscation provisions but applied the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on interim release.

In light of that authority and the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat, the Court ordered release while imposing conditions to preserve the vehicle’s availability and prevent its transfer.

The order further provides 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 panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order by the Trial Court.

Rule was made absolute.