01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Smart Hybrid ZXI+ vehicle, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 2–3 · pp. 1–2The prosecution alleged that the vehicle’s driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit.
¶ 2–3 · pp. 1–2The petitioner relied on the Court’s powers and the principle in *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat* that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police-station premises.
¶ 5 · p. 2The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226.
¶ 6 · p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released to its registered owner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
¶ 6, 9 · p. 2, 4ii.2. Whether release should be subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle’s availability and preserving evidence for trial.
¶ 8, 11–13 · pp. 3–503Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle in an appropriate case.
¶ 5–7 · pp. 2–3Section 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 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle.
¶ 9 · p. 4In *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, the Supreme Court advised against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and recognised release against suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.
¶ 8 · pp. 3–4The Court also relied on *Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat*, in which a coordinate bench ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227, and *M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat*, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, concerning the interplay between interim custody and the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.
¶ 7, 9 · pp. 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The Court treated the confiscation provisions as no absolute obstacle to interim custody, relying on the Supreme Court’s stated interpretation of Section 98(2) and its recognition of the court’s power to order proper custody.
¶ 9 · p. 4Consistent with *Sunderbhai*, it considered continued retention at the police station undesirable and directed release subject to security and conditions designed to ensure the vehicle’s preservation, availability for trial, and non-transfer.
¶ 8–12 · pp. 3–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, filing an undertaking not to transfer it until the trial concludes, and producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
¶ 10–11 · p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
¶ 12 · p. 5The order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restriction on transfer, subject to any contrary order by the trial court.
¶ 13 · p. 5Rule was made absolute.
¶ 14 · p. 5Original Court PDF
PANKAJ JEMABHAI VASAIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
