Gujarat HC Releases Bolero Seized In Liquor Case On Vehicle-Price Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought interim release of a Mahindra Bolero seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Sami Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

The State opposed release by referring to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers that the High Court may exercise to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the Court considered it alongside Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Court noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the State’s reliance on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but noted that the State did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release in an appropriate case.

Applying Sunderbhai and ABC Express, it concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release and that keeping the vehicle in police custody risked its deterioration.

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards, including a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and production of the vehicle when directed.

The vehicle was ordered to be released subject to the stated surety, undertaking and production conditions; any subsequent offence would result in confiscation of the vehicle.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.