Gujarat HC Releases Car Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the seized vehicle could be released 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 to the petitioner on furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial concludes, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The Court further directed that, before release, the police photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these materials are to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order is to be sent to the registering RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

The Court stated that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence; the Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Motor Car Fiesta, registration No. GJ-21-M-7353, on secret information that it was carrying liquor.

p. 2

The driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Pardi Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle in interim custody.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–6

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could exercise its powers under Article 226 to order release.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–6

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 8

ii.If release was appropriate, what conditions should govern the petitioner’s custody and use of the vehicle pending trial.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7, 10–12

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief concerning seized property.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

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

p. 3 · ¶ 7

In 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 on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

p. 3 · ¶ 7

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8

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

The vehicle was seized in connection with an alleged Prohibition Act offence, but the confiscation provisions did not, in light of M/s ABC Express, create an absolute bar to interim release.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–11

Keeping the vehicle at the police station risked deterioration, the concern identified in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–11

The Court therefore ordered release subject to safeguards securing its value, preventing its transfer pending trial, ensuring its production when required, and addressing any subsequent offence.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–11