Gujarat HC Releases Seized Nissan To Owner In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Law Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the concerned trial court or authority was directed to release the vehicle subject to the petitioner 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 producing it when directed; the order further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.

It also directed

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides, prepare a panchanama, and include both in the charge-sheet papers; the order must also be sent to the RTO for a register entry noting the restriction on transfer, subject to any trial-court order permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Nissan NV200 Evalia XL 6S (registration No. GJ-01-RM-5796), sought its release after it was seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11215038250536/2026.

¶ 2–3 · p. 1

He relied on the Court’s constitutional powers and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

¶ 5–6 · pp. 2–3

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the Court’s power under Article 226 to order release.

¶ 5–6 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions.

¶ 6, 9 · pp. 2–3

ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released to the petitioner on conditions securing its preservation and production during trial.

¶ 8–11 · pp. 3–4

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer constitutional and supervisory jurisdiction, and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (identified in the judgment as corresponding to Section 451 CrPC) provides for orders concerning custody of property pending trial.

¶ 2, 9 · p. 1, 3

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle; a court may order its proper custody pending trial.

¶ 9 · p. 3

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court stated that seized vehicles should not be left deteriorating at police stations and may be released on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

¶ 8 · p. 3

The Court also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, which released a vehicle in an analogous case under Articles 226 and 227.

¶ 7 · p. 3

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 Court accepted that the Prohibition Act contains confiscation provisions but concluded that Section 98(2) is not an absolute impediment to interim custody, applying the Supreme Court’s interpretation in M/s ABC Express.

¶ 6, 9 · pp. 2–3

Consistent with Sunderbhai and Musa Khan Jat, it considered release appropriate rather than leaving the vehicle exposed to deterioration, subject to safeguards ensuring its availability and preventing transfer during trial.

¶ 7–8 · pp. 3–4 · ¶ 11 · p. 4