Gujarat HC Releases Swift Seized In Liquor Case, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought interim release of his Maruti Suzuki Swift, registration No. GJ-01-HP-6687, seized in connection with an FIR registered at Tilakwada Police Station for an alleged offence under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The prosecution case was that the vehicle’s driver was carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

The petitioner relied on the Court’s powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS); the State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including orders concerning interim custody of seized property.

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for the Court’s power to make orders for the custody and disposal of property pending trial; the Court also referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor.

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court held that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and that interim custody may be granted on appropriate bonds, guarantees, and security.

The Court further relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, which held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

The Court considered the State’s confiscation objection alongside the Supreme Court’s clarification that Section 98(2) does not categorically prevent interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and the cited decisions of the Supreme Court and a coordinate Bench, it concluded that retaining the vehicle at the police station was not necessary where its return could be secured through appropriate safeguards.

The vehicle could therefore be released subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking against transfer, production when directed, and measures to document its condition.

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence.

Before release, the police were directed to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

A copy of the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court; the Rule was made absolute.