Gujarat HC Orders Truck Seized In Liquor Case Released On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Tata Intra V10 BS VI vehicle, registration No. GJ-06-BT-4421, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, leading to registration of an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act at Varnama Police Station, Vadodara.

The vehicle’s petitioner sought its release, relying on the Court’s constitutional and inherent jurisdiction and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State opposed release by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Prohibition Act, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to direct release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, as recognised in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

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

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

The vehicle had been seized in connection with a prohibition offence, but the confiscation provisions did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, create an absolute obstacle to its interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat, the Court considered release appropriate to avoid the vehicle remaining unused and deteriorating, while protecting the proceedings through security, an undertaking against transfer, and an obligation to produce the vehicle when directed.

The order further provides for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

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

A copy of the order is to be sent to the concerned RTO for an entry recording the restraint on transfer, subject to any order of the trial court permitting transfer.

The Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC concerning cancellation of hypothecation, which the petitioner’s advocate undertook to provide within 10 working days.

Rule was made absolute.