Gujarat HC Releases Seized Ertiga To Owner In Prohibition Case, Applying SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle ordered to be released to the petitioner upon furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and agreeing to produce it as directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama, and the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Maruti Ertiga financed by Punjab National Bank, sought interim release of the vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11191011260279/2026.

¶ 2–5 · pp. 1–2

The financier had issued an NOC permitting release of the vehicle.

¶ 2–5 · pp. 1–2

The State opposed release by relying on the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226 in an appropriate case.

¶ 6 · p. 2

02Issues

i.Whether the seized vehicle could be released on interim custody despite the confiscation provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act

¶ 6, 9 · p. 2, 4

ii.Whether release should be made subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s preservation and production during trial

¶ 8–12 · pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property in an appropriate case.

¶ 5–7 · pp. 2–3

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits a court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial; Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle.

¶ 9 · p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court advised against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for long periods and recognised release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

¶ 8 · pp. 3–4

The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017.

¶ 7 · p. 3

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 Court accepted that the vehicle was registered to the petitioner and noted the financier’s NOC.

¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–4

It concluded that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim custody, given the High Court’s power under Article 226 and the rule stated in M/s ABC Express that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo on release pending trial.

¶ 5–9 · pp. 2–4

Consistent with Sunderbhai, the Court considered it inappropriate to leave the vehicle exposed to deterioration and ordered release subject to financial security, an undertaking against transfer, and production of the vehicle when directed.

¶ 8, 11–12 · pp. 3–5