Gujarat HC Releases Truck Seized With Alleged Contraband, Applying SC Ruling That Gujarat Prohibition Act’s Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

Police intercepted an Ashok Leyland vehicle, registration No. GJ-15-AX-1411, after receiving information that it was carrying contraband. The vehicle was allegedly found carrying contraband without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Palsana Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought the vehicle’s release, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and producing a photocopy of a finance company’s no-objection certificate (NOC); he undertook to provide the original.

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of a seized vehicle where appropriate; the Court also referred to its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, permits orders for proper interim custody of property.

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which cautions against allowing seized vehicles to deteriorate at police stations and supports interim release on appropriate bonds, guarantees, or security.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the principle that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle, and cited Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat as a coordinate-bench example of release under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the State’s objection based on the Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but concluded that those provisions did not create an absolute bar to interim release.

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it found that the vehicle could be released subject to conditions that would secure its production for trial and prevent its transfer.

The petitioner’s production of the finance company’s NOC supported release, but the Court required the original NOC to be supplied before the Registry issued the writ.

Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama for inclusion with the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the RTO to record the restraint on transfer, and the Registry was directed to issue the writ only after receiving the original NOC.