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

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the Yamaha FZ upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and agreeing to produce it when directed; the order further provides that a subsequent offence will result in confiscation.

It also directed

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, and the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Yamaha FZ, registration No. GJ-32-R-4885, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

p. 2

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(e), 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

p. 2

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, and his revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

p. 2

The petitioner sought release before the High Court, submitting that prolonged retention could cause the vehicle to deteriorate and producing the hypothecating bank’s no-objection certificate.

p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–4

ii.Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions to preserve it pending trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empower the Court to order the proper custody and interim release of seized property.

p. 1, 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; courts may release them on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

pp. 2–4

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

p. 3

The High Court also 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release and that the court may order custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 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 98 Section 81

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the vehicle’s registered owner, and the vehicle had been seized in connection with the pending prohibition offence.

p. 3

Applying the principles against prolonged deterioration of seized vehicles, the Court held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release subject to safeguards.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release on conditions securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, ensuring its production when required, and addressing the consequence of a subsequent offence.

p. 5

05Holding

p. 5

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, and the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

p. 5

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF