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

Police intercepted a Mahindra Bolero allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release, stating that the vehicle was financed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and that the bank had issued a no-objection certificate permitting its release.

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

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), empowers the 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 keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and supports interim release against appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

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

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

The Court considered the petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC, alongside the risk that a vehicle kept in police custody could deteriorate.

It accepted that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release, and that the Court could secure the vehicle’s availability through appropriate conditions.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

The Court also required photographs and a panchanama before release, and directed that the order be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.

The RTO was directed to record that the vehicle could not be transferred pending trial, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.