Gujarat HC Releases Ertiga Seized In Liquor Case To Petitioner On Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought interim release of a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga seized in connection with an FIR registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act after police allegedly found its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit

The petitioner submitted an undertaking, including the finance company’s no-objection to release, and undertook to pay the loan instalments and not to sell or transfer the vehicle.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle in appropriate circumstances; 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 stated that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security, subject to production when required.

The judgment also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as an instance of release under Articles 226 and 227.

The judgment 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 and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention and the risk of deterioration in light of Sunderbhai, and concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release, relying on M/s ABC Express.

The finance company’s no-objection and the petitioner’s undertakings supported release subject to safeguards ensuring the vehicle’s availability and preserving it pending trial.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO, with transfer of the vehicle restrained until final disposal of the trial, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.