Gujarat HC Releases Seized Auto-Rickshaw On Surety Pending Trial, Applying SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

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

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner upon her furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

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

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of an auto-rickshaw financed by Bajaj Auto Credit Ltd., sought its interim release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR C.R. No. 11216024260389/2026.

p. 2

The financier had issued a no-objection certificate permitting release to the petitioner.

p. 2

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating while stored at police stations.

pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to its registered owner subject to safeguards for its production and preservation.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

The Court relied on its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and the interim-custody power under Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

p. 1, 4

Under Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, seized vehicles should not be left unattended for prolonged periods; courts may entrust them to an owner or other appropriate person upon taking bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their return when required.

pp. 3–4

The Court 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 absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle, and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 4

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC supported release in her favour.

p. 2

Although the State relied on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions, the Court considered the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Section 98(2) does not impose an absolute bar on interim custody.

p. 2, 4

Applying the principle in Sunderbhai, the Court found release appropriate to avoid the vehicle deteriorating in police custody, while requiring security, an undertaking against transfer, and production of the vehicle when directed.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

p. 5

Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchanama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

p. 5

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

p. 5

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF