01Facts
Police seized a Hyundai Verna, registration No. GJ-31-BA-5578, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.
p. 1An FIR was registered at Dahod Rural Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 1Kotak Mahindra Bank, the vehicle’s registered owner, petitioned under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the vehicle’s release.
pp. 1–2, 4The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could exercise its Article 226 jurisdiction to order release.
p. 202Issues
i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of the seized vehicle despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 2, 4ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on terms protecting its availability for trial and any subsequent proceedings.
pp. 3–403Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.
p. 3Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.
p. 3In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.
p. 3The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a coordinate bench ordered vehicle release under Articles 226 and 227, and 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.
pp. 3–4Provisions 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 petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the Court considered the risk of vehicles deteriorating while kept at police stations, as addressed in Sunderbhai.
pp. 3–4It further relied on the Supreme Court’s conclusion in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) does not absolutely preclude interim release, and noted the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat.
pp. 3–4The Court therefore ordered release subject to conditions intended to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production when required, and address any subsequent offence.
p. 405Holding
The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the Hyundai Verna to the petitioner upon furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, filing an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. THRO HARSHIL PANKAJKUMAR THAKKARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
