Gujarat HC Releases Vehicle Seized With Liquor, Requiring Full-Value Surety And An Undertaking Not To Transfer It During Trial.

Police intercepted a Tata four-wheeler, registration No. NL-01-N-5266, after receiving information that it was carrying liquor.

The driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit, and an FIR was registered at Manjusar Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The petitioner sought release of the vehicle under 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 Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

Article 226 of the Constitution permits the High Court to grant appropriate relief, while Article 227 confers supervisory jurisdiction; Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property during inquiry or trial.

The Court relied on *Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat*, AIR 2003 SC 638, which states that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be handed over on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security pending proceedings.

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 release of a seized vehicle and that a court may order its proper custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS.

The Court also noted the coordinate Bench decision in *Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat*, SCR.A/7190/2017, where a vehicle was released under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on *Sunderbhai* and the coordinate Bench decision, alongside the Supreme Court’s clarification in *M/s ABC Express* that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar to interim custody.

The State’s objection based on confiscation did not prevent release, particularly as the APP did not dispute the High Court’s power to order it.

To protect the vehicle’s availability and preserve evidence, the Court imposed conditions requiring a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it, and production whenever directed.

It also required photographs and a panchanama before release.

It further directed that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence and that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

Rule was made absolute.