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

The petitioner sought interim release of his Maruti Suzuki Baleno Zeta, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Anjar Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced the finance company’s no-objection certificate.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that constitutional powers to release the vehicle could be exercised

Article 226 of the Constitution confers writ jurisdiction, and Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction; the Court also invoked Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial

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 and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security

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

It also applied the Supreme Court’s stated holding in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS

The vehicle had been seized in connection with an alleged prohibition offence, but the possibility of confiscation did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, prevent interim release.

The Court considered the risk of the vehicle deteriorating in police custody, the petitioner’s request and the finance company’s NOC, and concluded that release could be ordered subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle remained available for trial and was not transferred.

It therefore imposed security, non-transfer, production, and documentation requirements

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 panchanama at the petitioner’s cost; the panchanama and photographs were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court