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

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the Trial Court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it whenever directed.

It also directed

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 from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO, and the rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Mahindra Bolero Neo N10, registration No. GJ-01-WL8527, on suspicion that it was carrying liquor. A search allegedly found liquor being transported without a pass or permit, leading to registration of C.R. No. 11204042560252 of 2026 at Nadiad Rural Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 2

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

p. 1

The State opposed release by relying on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner pending trial and, if so, on what conditions

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction.

p. 1

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property, corresponds to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the court relied on the principle that seized vehicles need not remain unattended in police custody and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat).

pp. 2–4

The court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, 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 make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 3

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 vehicle had been seized in a prohibition offence, but the confiscation provisions did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, prevent its interim release pending trial.

pp. 2–4

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai against prolonged police-station custody and relying on the coordinate bench’s approach in Musa Khan Jat, the court found release appropriate subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle’s preservation and production when required.

pp. 2–4