Gujarat HC Releases Vehicle Seized In Liquor Case, Citing SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Does Not Automatically Bar Interim Custody

Police intercepted a VE commercial vehicle, registration No. GJ-03-BV-8145, on secret information and allegedly found its driver carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

An FIR was registered at DCB Police Station, Rajkot, for offences under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the seized vehicle, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The State opposed release by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions, while accepting that the High Court could exercise its constitutional powers to order release.

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

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending inquiry or trial; the Court also referred to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as its predecessor provision.

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 judgment cited Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, as a coordinate-bench decision releasing a vehicle in an analogous case.

It also 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 does not impose an absolute bar on interim vehicle release and that the court may order proper custody under Section 451 CrPC.

The Court considered the risk of a seized vehicle deteriorating while kept in police custody, as addressed in Sunderbhai, and the analogous release order in Musa Khan Jat.

It further relied on M/s ABC Express to conclude that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not absolutely preclude interim release.

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and an obligation to produce it when directed; it also prescribed steps to document the vehicle’s condition and record the transfer restriction.

The police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama before release, and the order was to be sent to the concerned RTO for recording the restriction on transfer.

The petitioner also produced the original NOC, which was taken on record; the Rule was made absolute.