Gujarat HC Releases Breeza Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Of Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

In brief

The question

Whether the seized vehicle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until conclusion of trial, and agreeing to produce it when 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 and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; the order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

The Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought interim release of a Maruti Vitara Brezza seized in connection with an FIR registered at Chotila Police Station for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

Police alleged that the vehicle was carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

p. 1

The petitioner relied on the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and tendered a no-objection certificate from the finance company.

pp. 1–2

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

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.Whether the seized vehicle could be released to the petitioner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 2–3

ii.Whether release should be subject to safeguards to preserve the vehicle’s availability and evidentiary value during trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–4

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

pp. 2–4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left deteriorating at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 2–4

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, 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 a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

pp. 2–4

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

pp. 2–4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

pp. 2–5

The vehicle could instead be preserved for trial through conditions securing its value, preventing its transfer and requiring its production when directed.

pp. 2–5

The Court also ordered that photographs and a panchnama be prepared before release so that the vehicle’s condition would be documented for the trial record.

pp. 2–5