Gujarat HC Releases Bajaj Auto Seized In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Bajaj Auto CNG vehicle seized in connection with an FIR registered at Morbi Taluka Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle was carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and produced a bank/finance company certificate recording no objection to release.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

The Court also considered decisions of the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court concerning interim custody of seized vehicles.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case, while Articles 226 and 227 were invoked in the petition.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) empowers a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which discourages prolonged retention of seized vehicles and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

It also applied the stated principle in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, which ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

Although the vehicle was seized in connection with an alleged prohibition offence and the State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions, the Court accepted that those provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification regarding Section 98(2), it considered release appropriate, particularly in light of the petitioner’s request and the finance company’s no-objection certificate.

It imposed conditions to preserve the vehicle’s availability for trial and prevent its transfer, and directed that photographs and a panchnama be prepared before release to document the vehicle’s condition and support the prosecution evidence.

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

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.

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

Rule was made absolute.