Gujarat HC Releases Motorcycle Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

The petitioner, the registered owner of motorcycle No. GJ-18-DJ-6164, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 65(a) and 65(e) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected his release application on 14 August 2026, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision on 1 September 2026.

The petitioner contended that continued police custody would cause the motorcycle to deteriorate and relied on the High Court’s powers and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release under Article 226 where appropriate.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including interim release of seized property.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for orders concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be released on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security.

It also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat (SCR.A/7190/2017), where the High Court had ordered release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

Following 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 vehicle; the Court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The motorcycle was registered in the petitioner’s name and had been seized in connection with the FIR.

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, the Court considered that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked its deterioration and that the confiscation provisions did not preclude interim release.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

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

The order must be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any further order of the trial court.

Rule was made absolute.