Gujarat HC Releases Seized Liquor-Case Car On Full-Value Surety, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner’s Mahindra car, registration No. GJ-02-DA-4177, was seized after police intercepted it and allegedly found liquor being transported without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

The Magistrate rejected the petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle; the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

The petitioner then sought its release under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Sections 497 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He relied, among other things, on the risk of deterioration and a finance company’s no-objection certificate.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the court to make appropriate orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial; the judgment also refers to the High Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left at police stations to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security, subject to production when required.

The judgment further relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, noting the latter’s holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that the vehicle risked deterioration if left in custody.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 98(2), it held that the confiscation provision did not prevent interim release.

The vehicle could therefore be returned subject to conditions securing its production and preventing its transfer pending trial.

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 panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; the photographs and panchnama were to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer.