01Facts
The petitioner, claiming to be the vehicle’s registered owner, sought release of a Tata LPT 909 seized after police allegedly found its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2An FIR was registered at Shamlaji Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2The petitioner invoked Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; the State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 1–202Issues
i.Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 2–4ii.If release was permissible, what conditions should govern the vehicle’s interim custody.
p. 403Law Applied
The Court relied on Article 226 of the Constitution and the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that seized vehicles should not remain unused in police premises and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 2–3It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3Citing M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court noted that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release, and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the BNSS).
p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497Section 528
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court treated the confiscation provisions as not preventing interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.
pp. 2–4It also considered the risk of deterioration from prolonged police custody, as addressed in Sunderbhai, and the coordinate Bench’s approach in Musa Khan Jat.
pp. 2–4It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to secure the vehicle’s availability, preserve evidence of its condition and prevent its transfer during trial.
pp. 2–405Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed.
pp. 4–5The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these materials were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5The order also directed that the RTO be notified of the restraint on transfer, subject to any later permission by the trial court; the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
pp. 4–5Original Court PDF
RAMDEV NIMBARAM GURJARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
