Gujarat HC Orders Truck Seized In Essential Commodities Case Released To Registered Owner Pending Trial On Vehicle-Value Surety

The petitioner, the registered owner of a TATA PRIMA 5532.S BS-VI 4x2 vehicle, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR registered at Tharad Police Station for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act.

He relied on the Court’s powers under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State opposed release by referring to confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226; it left the matter to the Court.

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits orders for the proper custody of property during an inquiry or trial.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered that retaining it in police custody risked deterioration, consistent with the concern identified in Sunderbhai.

It also relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat and the Supreme Court’s clarification that confiscation provisions do not necessarily preclude interim custody.

In light of the State’s position that Article 226 relief was available and its request for appropriate orders, the Court found release warranted, subject to safeguards preserving the vehicle and securing its production for trial.

Release was conditioned on a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, production of the vehicle when directed, and confiscation if a subsequent offence occurs.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers; the order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any further order of the Trial Court.