Gujarat HC Releases Seized Kia Seltos In Liquor Case On Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a Kia Seltos allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit and registered an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release; he stated that the vehicle was financed by IDFC First Bank Limited and produced the financier’s NOC permitting release.

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but did not dispute the High Court’s power to order release.

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and its inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it applied the principle that seized vehicles should not be left unused to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security to ensure their return when required.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release and that a court may make an appropriate custody order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

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

The petitioner was the registered owner and had produced the financier’s NOC.

Although the State relied on the statutory confiscation provisions, the Court considered that those provisions did not foreclose interim release, having regard to the Supreme Court’s guidance on preventing seized vehicles from deteriorating and its ruling that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

It therefore ordered release while imposing conditions to preserve the vehicle, secure its production, and maintain the trial’s evidentiary record.

The order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence; required police to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release; and directed that the order be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer.