01Facts
The petitioner sought release of a Maruti Suzuki Frunty Car, registration No. GJ-21-9749, seized after police allegedly found its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2An FIR was registered at Chikhli Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim custody of the vehicle.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.
p. 2 · ¶ 502Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–8ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its availability and preventing its transfer pending trial.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–1203Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer powers which the High Court may exercise to direct release of seized property in an appropriate case.
pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1, 5Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permits a court to make appropriate orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.
pp. 1, 3–4 · ¶ 1, 8In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over subject to appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.
p. 3 · ¶ 7The judgment 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 does not displace the court’s power to order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 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 State’s objection based on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions alongside the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim custody.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–8Applying the principles against prolonged detention and deterioration of seized vehicles, and noting the High Court’s power to order release, it found that the vehicle could be returned subject to conditions ensuring its preservation, availability for trial, and non-transfer.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–805Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle ordered released on the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13The Court further directed the police to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost before release, with both forming part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the trial court.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13The rule was made absolute.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–13Original Court PDF
SURESHBHAI BHAGUBHAI PATELvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
