Gujarat HC Releases Liquor-Seized Trailer Pending Trial, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of an Ashok Leyland trailer, registration No. RJ-14-GJ-2429, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Patdi Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim release of the vehicle.

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautioned against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and endorsed their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

It also referred to Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a coordinate bench released a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

Further, relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle; the court may make an appropriate custody order pending trial.

The vehicle had been seized in a prohibition case, but the State’s reliance on the Act’s confiscation provisions did not preclude interim release. The Court applied the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, and noted the coordinate bench’s approach in Musa Khan Jat, to conclude that continued retention of the trailer was not required where its production could be secured by conditions.

It therefore ordered release subject to financial security, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when directed, and measures to document its condition for trial.

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

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer; because the vehicle was hypothecated, the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.

Rule was made absolute.