Gujarat HC Releases Kia Carens Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the Kia Carens to the petitioner upon his 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 whenever directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchnama; both must form part of the charge-sheet papers.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police intercepted the petitioner’s Kia Carens, registration No. RJ-22-UB-1821, on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

p. 1

An FIR was registered at Nana Pondha Police Station, Valsad, for an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

p. 1

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, but accepted that the High Court could order release; the finance company had no objection.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions safeguarding its production and preservation for trial.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the BNSS, the Court may order interim custody of seized property.

p. 3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court emphasized that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security, subject to their production when required.

p. 3

The Court relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

p. 4

It also referred to the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

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 accepted that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not absolutely prevent interim release, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express.

p. 4

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and Musa Khan Jat, it considered release preferable to allowing the vehicle to remain unattended and deteriorate, while protecting the prosecution’s interests through conditions requiring security, non-transfer, and production of the vehicle.

pp. 3–5

The finance company’s lack of objection further supported release.

p. 2

05Holding

p. 5

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

p. 5

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchnama; both must form part of the charge-sheet papers.

pp. 4–5

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF