Gujarat HC Releases Maruti Swift Seized In Liquor Case On Surety, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Maruti Swift LXI seized in connection with an FIR registered at Dungri Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The prosecution alleged that the vehicle was carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating while kept at police stations.

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer constitutional jurisdiction relevant to the High Court’s power to order release of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS concerns custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the judgment also refers to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its corresponding provision.

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order its proper custody under the applicable procedural provision, as stated in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court directed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release in an analogous case.

The Court considered the vehicle’s continued detention and deterioration against the State’s objection based on the confiscation provisions.

Relying on Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it concluded that Section 98(2) was not an absolute embargo on interim release and that the vehicle could be placed in proper custody subject to safeguards.

The analogous decision in Musa Khan Jat supported exercising the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to grant release.

The Court therefore ordered release on conditions designed to preserve the vehicle, secure its production, and prevent its transfer pending trial.

The concerned trial court or authority was directed to release the Maruti Swift LXI upon the petitioner furnishing a 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 if a subsequent offence occurred.

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides at the petitioner’s cost and prepare a panchanama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

A 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 permitting transfer.

If the vehicle was hypothecated, the original NOC had to be provided before the Registry issued the writ.