Gujarat HC Releases Tempo Seized In Prohibition Case, Citing SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Doesn’t Automatically Bar Interim Custody

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle ordered to be released upon 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 agreeing to produce it when directed.

It also directed

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, to be included with the charge-sheet papers; the order was also to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any contrary order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

The petitioner sought release of an Eicher Tempo, registration No. GJ-23-AT-8695, seized after police intercepted it on the basis of secret information and allegedly found it carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

An FIR was registered at Bhilad Police Station for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

The petitioner invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking interim release of the vehicle.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2 · ¶ 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the Act’s confiscation provisions

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 8

ii.2. Whether the seized Eicher Tempo should be released to the petitioner pending trial, and, if so, on what conditions

pp. 1, 4–5 · ¶ 1, 9–12

03Law Applied

The Court invoked its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to Section 497 of the BNSS, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning interim custody of property.

p. 1, 4 · ¶ 1, 8

It relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which discourages prolonged storage of seized vehicles at police stations and supports interim release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 7

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, reported at 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, and that the court may order its proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

p. 4 · ¶ 8

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.CR.A. No. 7190 of 2017, in which a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

p. 2 · ¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The Court treated the alleged applicability of the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions as not preventing interim release, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s statement that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo.

p. 2, 4 · ¶ 5, 8

Applying the principle against leaving seized vehicles to deteriorate in police custody, and following the cited coordinate Bench decision, it found release appropriate subject to safeguards securing the vehicle’s value, preventing its transfer, and ensuring its production when required.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–9