Gujarat HC Orders Truck Seized In Liquor Case Released On Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the seized vehicle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and producing it whenever directed.

It also directed

The order further provides that the vehicle shall stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order is to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

01Facts

Police intercepted an Eicher Pro 2114 XL truck, registration No. HR-55-AQ-2373, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor. The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Katvara Police Station for offences under Sections 65(e), 81, 83, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner sought interim release of the vehicle. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dahod, rejected the application on 3 June 2026, and the Sessions Judge, Dahod, dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 17 June 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The vehicle was stated to be hypothecated to IndusInd Bank, which had issued a no-objection certificate for its release.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the seized vehicle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the vehicle’s potential deterioration while kept in police custody justified its release subject to safeguards.

pp. 2–4

03Law Applied

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

pp. 2–4

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 at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with provision for their production when required.

p. 3

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released in an analogous case.

p. 3

Further, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 497 of the BNSS).

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 83 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was identified as the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk that prolonged police custody would cause deterioration.

p. 2, 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release and that custody could be protected through conditions ensuring the vehicle’s preservation and availability for trial. The bank’s no-objection certificate was also on record.

pp. 2–4