Gujarat HC Releases Liquor-Seizure Ertiga On Vehicle-Value Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the vehicle was ordered to be released on the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

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.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga CNG car seized in connection with an FIR registered at Morbi Taluka Police Station for a Prohibition Act offence after police allegedly found liquor in the vehicle.

p. 1

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance against leaving seized vehicles unattended and becoming unusable; he also produced a no-objection certificate from the finance company.

pp. 2–3

The State objected by reference to the Gujarat Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. If so, on what conditions the vehicle should be released pending trial.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The Court considered its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

p. 1

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, for the principle that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations for long periods and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

p. 3

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

p. 3

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which the judgment states held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC, corresponding to Section 497 BNSS.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

04Reasoning

Applying those authorities, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation under the Prohibition Act did not prevent interim release of the vehicle.

pp. 3–4

Continued retention risked the vehicle deteriorating, while conditions could secure its preservation and availability for trial.

pp. 3–4

The finance company’s no-objection certificate was also on record.

p. 2

05Holding

p. 4

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.

p. 4

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

p. 5

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF