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

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed release of the scooter subject to the stated conditions, including a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed.

It also directed

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these records are to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Access 125 scooter, registration No. GJ-32-AH-7860, after allegedly finding its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(e), 81 and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner’s application for interim release was rejected by the Magistrate on 10 August 2026, and his revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court on 25 August 2026.

p. 2

He then sought release of the vehicle before the High Court, arguing that continued retention could cause it to deteriorate.

p. 2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

p. 2, 4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on conditions to ensure its preservation and availability for trial.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

pp. 2–3

Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial.

p. 4

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, as recognised in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885.

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bond, security and conditions.

pp. 2–4

The High Court also relied on the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the High Court considered the risk that it would deteriorate if left in police custody.

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s clarification in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim custody, the Court concluded that release was permissible while protecting the prosecution’s interests through a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, production of the vehicle when required, and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

pp. 4–5

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these records are to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

p. 5

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

p. 5

Rule was made absolute.

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF