Gujarat HC Orders XUV500 Seized In Liquor Case Released Subject To Conditions, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act 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 prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the XUV500 upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO, and the Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted a Mahindra XUV500 allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and seized it in connection with an FIR registered at Dahod Rural Police Station under Sections 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The registered owner’s application for release was rejected by the Magistrate on 17 March 2026; his revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 18 June 2026. He then sought release of the vehicle, arguing that continued storage would cause deterioration.

pp. 1–2

The High Court recorded that the petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner.

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case despite the confiscation provisions in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to conditions protecting its production and availability during trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case; Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial.

p. 3

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be returned on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

p. 3

The judgment also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court released a vehicle by exercising its constitutional powers.

p. 3

It further relied on 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 interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

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

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The High Court considered the petitioner’s registered ownership, the risk that the vehicle would deteriorate while kept in custody, and the authorities establishing that confiscation provisions do not absolutely preclude interim release.

pp. 3–4

It concluded that the vehicle could be returned without undermining the proceedings if secured by a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer it, and an obligation to produce it when directed. Photographs and a panchnama would preserve evidence of the vehicle’s condition.

pp. 4–5