Gujarat HC Releases Liquor-Seized Innova To Registered Owner, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Toyota Innova, sought its release after it was seized in connection with an FIR alleging that its driver was transporting liquor without a pass or permit, contrary to Sections 65(a), 81, 98(2) and 116(B) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed her revision.

She then approached the High Court, arguing that continued police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle in an appropriate case; the petitioner also invoked the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits a court to make appropriate orders for interim custody of property.

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, emphasised that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be returned on suitable bond, guarantee and security.

The High Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a vehicle pending trial.

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle was liable to deteriorate if kept unattended at the police station.

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s ruling in ABC Express, the Court held that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release and that the vehicle could be preserved through appropriate safeguards.

It therefore directed release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the vehicle pending trial, an obligation to produce it when directed, and a condition concerning confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

The Court directed release of the Toyota Innova to the petitioner upon compliance with the specified conditions.

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

A copy of the order was also to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.