Gujarat HC Releases Truck Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Law Doesn’t Bar Interim Custody

The petitioner sought interim release of a Tata truck, registration No. GJ-06-AZ-9154, seized after police allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at Thasra Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

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

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

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

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides for the proper custody of property during an inquiry or trial.

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 and may be handed over on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, in which the High Court ordered release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227.

As recounted in this judgment, M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, held that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court considered the risk that the truck would deteriorate if kept in police custody and applied the principles in Sunderbhai concerning release on safeguards.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling, as described in the judgment, that Section 98(2) does not absolutely prevent interim release.

In light of those authorities and the State’s acknowledgment of the Court’s power to order release, the Court directed release subject to a solvent surety, an undertaking not to transfer the truck during trial, and an obligation to produce it when required.

The petitioner must furnish a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertake not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, and produce it as directed; the order further provides for confiscation if a subsequent offence occurs.

Before release, police must photograph the vehicle from all sides, prepare a panchanama at the petitioner’s cost, and include both in the charge-sheet papers.

The order must also be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

The Rule was made absolute.