Gujarat HC Releases Car Seized In Liquor Case On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, bars interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, filing an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it whenever directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Suzuki Nexa Fronx, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e) and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, following the discovery of liquor in the vehicle.

p. 1

The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected her release application, and the Principal District Judge dismissed her revision.

p. 2

The petitioner argued that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate and produced the hypothecating bank’s no-objection certificate.

p. 2

The State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, bars interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

p. 4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle could be released to the petitioner on appropriate conditions, notwithstanding the alleged offence and the possibility of confiscation.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

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

pp. 2–3

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 appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, with production required if directed by the court.

p. 3

The 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 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 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle was being retained in connection with the prohibition offence.

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that the possibility of confiscation under Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release, and that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to preserve the vehicle, secure its production for trial, and prevent its transfer.

pp. 4–5