01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of an Eicher tractor and trolley bearing registration No. GJ-20-B-5982, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging the transportation of liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to Sections 98(2), 116(B), 65(e) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
p. 1 · p. 3The Magistrate rejected the release application on 8 April 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 15 April 2026.
p. 2The petitioner then invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, submitting that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
p. 2 · p. 3 · p. 4ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner, and, if so, on what safeguards.
p. 3 · p. 4 · p. 503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers that the High Court may exercise to order release of seized property.
p. 2 · p. 3In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police premises and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.
p. 3 · p. 4The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle in an analogous case.
p. 3The Court also relied on 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, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).
p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98Section 116Section 65Section 81
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR.
p. 3Applying Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, it reasoned that prolonged retention could lead to deterioration and that Section 98(2) did not categorically prevent interim release while the trial was pending.
p. 3 · p. 4It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards designed to secure the vehicle’s availability, prevent its transfer during trial and preserve evidence of its condition.
p. 4 · p. 505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the tractor and trolley upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 5Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the Trial Court.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
SHASHIKANT DITABHAI DAMORvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
