01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Mahindra Mexitruck Bolero seized in connection with an FIR registered at Amroli Police Station, Surat, alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 1 · ¶ 1–2The petitioner relied on a no-objection certificate from the finance company and sought release under the Court’s constitutional and statutory powers, citing the risk that vehicles kept at police stations would deteriorate.
p. 2 · ¶ 4The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226.
p. 2 · ¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5, 8ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released subject to conditions securing its preservation and production during the proceedings
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8–1203Law Applied
The Court invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the Court’s power to make orders for the proper custody of property.
p. 1 · ¶ 1 · p. 3 · ¶ 8Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, on release of a vehicle through the High Court’s constitutional powers, and 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 and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.
p. 2 · ¶ 6 · p. 3 · ¶ 8Provisions 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 Court considered the vehicle’s continued retention at the police station against the risk of deterioration identified in Sunderbhai.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7It found that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7–8The Court therefore ordered release subject to conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production, and preserve evidence of its condition for trial.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 10–1205Holding
The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was directed to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and agreeing to produce it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 3 · ¶ 10Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both made part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 4 · ¶ 11The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.
p. 4 · ¶ 12Rule was made absolute.
p. 4 · ¶ 14Original Court PDF
NARAYAN JITU MALIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
