Gujarat HC Releases Auto-Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case, Says Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Bajaj RE Compact CNG (auto-rickshaw), registration No. GJ-13-AV-7047, on secret information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver allegedly had no pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Halvad Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The vehicle’s owner sought its release; he produced a finance company’s NOC.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including orders for interim custody of seized property.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), 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.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, or security.

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

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

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention against the risk that it would deteriorate while remaining at the police station.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Sunderbhai and on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act was not an absolute bar to interim release.

The petitioner’s production of the finance company’s NOC further supported release, subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its availability for trial.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, 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.

The order was to be sent to the RTO for an entry recording the restraint on transfer, and the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.