Gujarat HC Releases Auto-Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Bajaj Compact CNG passenger auto-rickshaw, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with a prohibition offence.

The vehicle’s driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), relying on the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody.

He also produced a no-objection certificate from Bajaj Finance Limited.

Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the Court also referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor.

Under Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, seized vehicles should not be left unattended to deteriorate, and may be entrusted to an owner or other appropriate person subject to bonds, guarantees, or security for their production when required.

The Court relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as an example of vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

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

Applying the principles against leaving seized vehicles to deteriorate, and the ruling that Section 98(2) does not absolutely preclude interim release, the Court found that the vehicle could be released subject to safeguards ensuring its preservation and production for trial.

The APP did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release and left the matter to the Court.

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

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.