Gujarat HC Releases Seized Maruti Eeco On Conditions, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and directed release of the Maruti EECO upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equivalent 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 when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the transfer restraint, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of a Maruti EECO seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and registered as FIR C.R. No. 11184009261049/2026.

¶ 2–3

He claimed to be the vehicle’s registered owner and produced a financier’s no-objection certificate permitting its release.

¶ 5

The State opposed release by referring to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶ 6

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

¶ 6–9

ii.Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner subject to conditions protecting its availability for trial and any eventual confiscation.

¶ 5, 8–11

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property. Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits orders for the proper custody of property pending trial.

¶ 8

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

¶ 8

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not absolutely bar interim release of a seized vehicle and does not prevent a court from ordering proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

¶ 7, 9

Provisions 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 asserted ownership and produced the financier’s NOC, while the State’s reliance on the confiscation provisions did not establish an absolute bar to interim release.

¶ 5–6, 9

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and ABC Express, the Court concluded that the vehicle could be released while safeguarding its availability and preserving the trial court’s ability to deal with it.

¶ 8–12

It therefore imposed security, non-transfer, production, and documentation requirements.

¶ 8–12

05Holding

¶ 11

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

¶ 12

A copy of the order was to be sent to the RTO to record the transfer restraint, subject to any later order of the trial court permitting transfer.

¶ 13

Rule was made absolute.

¶ 14

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF