Gujarat HC Releases Car Seized In Liquor Case To Registered Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Release

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the vehicle on the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equivalent 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; it further ordered that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence

It also directed

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers

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 permitting transfer

Rule was made absolute

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Eeco bearing registration No. GJ-27-AH-2336, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR registered at Garbada Police Station, Dahod, alleging that the vehicle’s driver was transporting liquor without a pass or permit

¶ 1–2, 6

The petitioner invoked Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat

¶ 1, 3

The State objected by reference to the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

¶ 4, 9

ii.2. Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner, was entitled to release of the vehicle subject to conditions securing its availability and preservation pending trial

¶ 6–11

03Law Applied

Articles 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provided the procedural basis invoked for seeking release of the seized vehicle

¶ 1, 3, 7

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate in police-station premises and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to their production when required

¶ 8

As noted by the Court, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS

¶ 9

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 Court found that the petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle and relied on the principles against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate while proceedings are pending

¶ 6, 8

It also applied the Supreme Court’s conclusion, as recorded in the judgment, that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not absolutely preclude interim release

¶ 9

The vehicle could therefore be released subject to conditions ensuring security for its value, preventing its transfer, and requiring its production when directed

¶ 11