Gujarat HC Releases Seized Truck In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Confiscation Is Not An Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Tata Motors goods carrier, registration No. MH-46-BF-3827, seized in connection with an offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act and FIR No. 11192029250040/2025

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, relying on the need to prevent seized vehicles from deteriorating in police custody

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution confer writ and supervisory jurisdiction, while Section 497 of the BNSS provides for interim custody of property during inquiry or trial (the judgment discusses the corresponding power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

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

The judgment also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

It further referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, where vehicle release was ordered under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court treated the vehicle’s potential deterioration in police custody as a reason against prolonged retention and applied the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express to conclude that the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release.

It therefore allowed release subject to safeguards: a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s value stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it also required photographs and a panchnama and directed that the RTO be notified of the transfer restriction.

The petitioner must furnish the required surety and undertaking, produce the vehicle when directed, and comply with the transfer restriction; the police must photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and the RTO must record notice of the restriction.

The Court further directed that, in the event of a subsequent offence, the vehicle would stand confiscated.

Rule was made absolute.