01Facts
Police intercepted a Hyundai Verna, registration No. GJ-38-B-8075, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–6An FIR was registered at Shamlaji Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–6The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate dated 5 August 2026.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–6The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 3–602Issues
i.Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5–9ii.Whether the petitioner, as registered owner, was entitled to release of the vehicle subject to safeguards pending trial
pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 5, 10–1303Law Applied
The High Court invoked its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
p. 2 · ¶ 2It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which discourages leaving seized vehicles unused in police-station premises and supports their release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 8It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle; the court may order proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS
p. 4 · ¶ 9The Court additionally referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which ordered release in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227
p. 3 · ¶ 7Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98
04Reasoning
The petitioner established registered ownership and produced the financier’s NOC, while the State did not dispute that the Court could order release in an appropriate case
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 5–6Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court held that the possibility of confiscation under the Prohibition Act did not, by itself, prevent interim release.
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–12To safeguard the vehicle’s availability and evidentiary value, release was made conditional on security, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and documentation of the vehicle’s condition
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 8–1205Holding
The petition was allowed and the vehicle was ordered to be released to the petitioner, subject to a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR; an undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial; production whenever directed; and confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence
p. 4 · ¶ 11Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
p. 5 · ¶ 12–14A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court
p. 5 · ¶ 12–14Original Court PDF
ASODIA HIREN RAMESHvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
