Gujarat HC Releases Ertiga Seized In Liquor Case On Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

The petitioner sought release of his Ertiga car, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Mahuva Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s constitutional and statutory powers and on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to grant appropriate relief, and the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and its power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, including while an application for their return is pending.

The judgment relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as a coordinate-bench example of vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 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 order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered that retaining the car at the police station risked deterioration, consistent with the concern identified in Sunderbhai.

It rejected the confiscation provision as an absolute obstacle to interim release, relying on M/s ABC Express and the State’s concession that the High Court could order release.

To protect the prosecution’s interests, the Court required a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production of the vehicle when directed.

It also required photographs and a panchnama before release to preserve evidence for trial.

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO, with transfer of the vehicle restrained until the trial concluded unless the Trial Court permitted otherwise.