01Facts
Police seized the petitioner’s Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle, registration No. MP-69-MB-5881, after its driver was allegedly found transporting liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Garbada Police Station for offences under Sections 65(e), 81, 98(2) and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
p. 1The petitioner’s application for release of the motorcycle was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Garbada, and his revision was dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Dahod.
p. 2He then sought release of the vehicle before the High Court, contending that continued detention would cause deterioration.
p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.
pp. 2–4ii.2. Whether the motorcycle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation.
pp. 2–503Law Applied
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate.
pp. 1, 3–4Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property pending trial, was invoked; the judgment also referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor.
p. 1, 4Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial; the court may order its proper custody.
p. 4, citing M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be returned on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 3–4The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench’s decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65Section 81Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The petitioner was the registered owner, and the motorcycle had been seized in connection with the pending FIR.
p. 3The Court considered the risk that prolonged police custody would cause the vehicle to deteriorate, applying Sunderbhai’s guidance against keeping seized vehicles unattended.
pp. 2–4It also relied on Musa Khan Jat and the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on interim release.
pp. 3–4The Court therefore found release appropriate, subject to conditions safeguarding the vehicle’s availability and preventing its transfer.
pp. 4–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the concerned trial court or authority was directed to release the motorcycle subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent 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 that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
p. 4Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama, to be included with the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5A 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.
p. 5Rule was made absolute.
p. 5Original Court PDF
MAHESHBHAI HARSINGBHAI BAMNIYAvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
