Gujarat HC Orders Truck Seized In Liquor Case Released To Driver, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release Truck Container No. GJ-06-ZZ-1621 subject to the specified surety, undertaking, production and confiscation conditions.

It also directed

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, and a copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restriction on transfer pending trial, subject to any further order of the trial court. The rule is made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the driver of Truck Container No. GJ-06-ZZ-1621, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an alleged liquor-transport offence under Sections 65-A, 65(e), 81, 83, 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 27 January 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 19 February 2026. The petitioner then sought relief before the High Court, contending that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 3–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released on conditions to preserve it and secure its production during the trial.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property. 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 and disposal of property pending trial; Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent powers.

pp. 3–4

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 and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act is not an absolute bar to interim release and that the court may order custody under Section 451 CrPC.

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 Court considered the vehicle’s seizure in the prohibition case, the risk of deterioration if it remained in custody, and the authorities permitting interim release subject to safeguards. It accepted that the confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to release pending trial.

pp. 3–5

To protect the proceedings and ensure the vehicle remained available, the Court required a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production whenever directed; it also ordered photographs and a panchnama before release.

pp. 3–5