Gujarat HC Releases Car Seized In Alleged Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released to its registered owner on interim custody 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 on the specified conditions: a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR; an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial; production of the vehicle when directed; and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must also be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Innova car, registration No. GJ-01-HL-7078, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner, identified as the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release while the criminal proceedings were pending.

pp. 1–2, 3

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the seized vehicle could be released to its registered owner on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether release should be subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle’s production and availability for trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of seized property.

p. 1, 3

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

pp. 3–4

It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885; the latter held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

p. 4

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 petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk of deterioration associated with keeping vehicles in police custody.

pp. 3–5

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited decisions, it concluded that the prohibition-law confiscation provisions did not, by themselves, prevent interim release.

pp. 3–5

The vehicle could therefore be returned subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, an obligation to produce it when directed, and other safeguards.

pp. 3–5