Gujarat HC Releases Car Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act’s Confiscation Clause Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Maruti Suzuki EECO, registration No. GJ-05-RC-6337, seized in connection with an FIR registered at Adajan Police Station, Surat, alleging that its driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit 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. The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions; respondent No. 2, a finance company, was served but did not appear.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS provide the Court with authority relevant to ordering custody of seized property.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stressed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security pending proceedings.

The Court 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

The Court accepted that the vehicle was seized in a prohibition case and noted the State’s objection based on the Act’s confiscation provisions. However, it considered that those provisions did not absolutely prevent interim release, in light of M/s ABC Express, and that continued detention risked the vehicle deteriorating, as recognised in Sunderbhai.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle pending trial, an obligation to produce it when directed, and a consequence of confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of 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; the Rule was made absolute.