Gujarat HC Orders Truck Seized After Driver Allegedly Carried Sand Without a Permit Released, Bars Transfer Until Trial Ends

Police intercepted a Tata Motors LPK truck, registration No. GJ-18-AZ-7853, allegedly carrying ordinary sand without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Prantij Police Station under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and the Mines and Minerals Development Regulation Act.

The petitioner sought release of the seized vehicle under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. She relied on the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate. The State objected by reference to confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the Court also referred to its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security, subject to their production when required.

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case by exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

The Court considered the State’s objection based on the applicable confiscation provisions, but noted that the State did not dispute the Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.

Applying Sunderbhai, it concluded that keeping the vehicle in custody risked deterioration and was unnecessary if its return could be secured through conditions. The finance company’s no-objection certificate and the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat supported release, while conditions concerning security, non-transfer, production, and documentation would protect the proceedings.

The petitioner must furnish a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it when directed; the vehicle is liable to confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must also be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.