Gujarat HC Releases Auto-Rickshaw Seized In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Confiscation Does Not Automatically Bar 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 auto-rickshaw was ordered released on the stated conditions: a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value as stated in the FIR; an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial; production whenever directed; and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, and the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted and searched the petitioner’s auto-rickshaw, registration No. GJ-12-Z-3669, after receiving information that it was carrying contraband. The vehicle allegedly contained contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Mundra Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1 · ¶ 2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1 · ¶ 1

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.

p. 2 · ¶ 5–6 · p. 4 · ¶ 8

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its availability and preserving evidence.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7, 10–12

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle where appropriate, and the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 1 · ¶ 1 · p. 2 · ¶ 5

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 released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7

Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, the Court noted that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat.

p. 2 · ¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The prosecution’s reliance on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release: the Court accepted that Section 98(2) was not an absolute bar and that the High Court could order release when appropriate.

p. 2, 4 · ¶ 5, 8

Applying the concern in Sunderbhai about vehicles deteriorating in police custody, and the approach in Musa Khan Jat, the Court directed release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

p. 2 · ¶ 6 · pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–12

Photographs and a panchanama were required to preserve evidence for trial.

p. 5 · ¶ 11

05Holding

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, and the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

p. 5 · ¶ 11–12

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5 · ¶ 14

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF