Gujarat HC Releases Liquor-Case Ertiga Against Surety Equal To FIR-Stated Price, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of an Ertiga Smart Hybrid car, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging liquor-related offences under Sections 65(e), 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that continued police custody risked deterioration of the vehicle.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case, and Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial.

Sections 65(e), 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act were relevant to the alleged offences and the State’s objection based on confiscation.

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

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, the latter holding that Section 98(2) does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial and that the court may make appropriate custody orders.

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle had remained seized in connection with the pending prosecution.

Applying Sunderbhai, the Court considered the risk that continued storage would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

It further held, consistently with M/s ABC Express, that Section 98(2) did not absolutely preclude interim release.

The competing interests could be protected through conditions requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and documentation of its condition before release.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.