01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Suzuki Access scooter, sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 2 · ¶ 3The prosecution alleged that the scooter’s driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit; an FIR was registered at Aslali Police Station.
p. 2 · ¶ 3The petitioner relied on a financier’s no-objection certificate and sought release under Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution, referring to the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody.
p. 2 · ¶ 5The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release.
p. 3 · ¶ 602Issues
i.1. Whether the seized scooter could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 3 · ¶ 6–9ii.2. Whether the High Court should exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to order release, and on what safeguards.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 7–1303Law Applied
The Court relied on Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and the principle in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on suitable bonds, guarantees and security.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).
p. 4 · ¶ 9The Court also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, as support for release under Articles 226 and 227.
p. 3 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
04Reasoning
The Court considered the State’s reliance on the confiscation provisions but concluded that they did not prevent interim release, having regard to the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s ABC Express.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 6, 9It also considered the risk of deterioration while the scooter remained in police custody, consistent with Sunderbhai.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8In exercising its constitutional jurisdiction, the Court therefore ordered release subject to safeguards intended to secure the vehicle’s preservation and production during the proceedings.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–1305Holding
The petition was allowed and the scooter was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon 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.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–14The Court further directed that the vehicle be photographed from all sides and a panchnama prepared at the petitioner’s cost; these records were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–14The RTO was to be notified of the restraint on transfer, subject to any subsequent order of the Trial Court.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–14The Court also directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 10–14Original Court PDF
SOLANKI VIJAYBHAI DHIRUBHAIvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
