Gujarat HC Releases Scorpio Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is Not An Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police seized the petitioner’s Mahindra & Mahindra Scorpio, registration No. GJ-02-DA-9763, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Modas Rural Police Station for offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81 and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle on 8 August 2026, and the Sessions Judge dismissed his revision on 20 August 2026.

The petitioner then sought release under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing that continued detention would cause the vehicle to deteriorate.

The Court relied on its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and the principles in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, that seized vehicles should not be left unattended for prolonged periods and may be returned on appropriate bond, guarantee and security.

It also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, R/SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

The Court noted the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the Court may order appropriate custody under Section 451 CrPC (Section 497 BNSS).

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR; leaving it in custody risked deterioration.

Applying Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and the cited authorities, the Court concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release where suitable safeguards could secure the vehicle’s availability and preserve the prosecution’s evidence.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent 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.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order must be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the trial court.

The order further provides that, in the event of a subsequent offence, the vehicle shall stand confiscated; the Rule was made absolute.