Gujarat HC Releases Seized Auto-Rickshaw In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether a seized vehicle may be released on interim custody notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the trial court or concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle upon 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 also provides for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

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

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.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Bajaj Maxima CNG auto-rickshaw, registration No. GJ-04-AU-3061, after allegedly finding its driver transporting liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 81, 83, 116-B and 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vallabhipur, and his criminal revision was dismissed by the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar.

p. 2

He then sought relief under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, submitting that continued detention risked deterioration of the vehicle.

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether a seized vehicle may be released on interim custody notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner, as the vehicle’s registered owner, was entitled to release subject to safeguards for its production and preservation.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

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

p. 4

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be returned on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, concerning the interaction between interim-custody powers and Section 98 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, and on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

pp. 3–4

The High Court further invoked its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

pp. 2–3

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 81 Section 83 Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle had been seized in connection with the FIR.

p. 3

Applying Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s ABC Express, it reasoned that the vehicle’s continued detention could cause deterioration and that Section 98(2) did not prevent interim release.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release on conditions designed to secure the vehicle’s value, prevent its transfer, ensure its production when required, and preserve evidence of its condition.

pp. 4–5