01Facts
The petitioner, the registered owner of a Mahindra XUV 500, sought interim release of the vehicle, which had been seized in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81 and 116-B of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
pp. 1–3The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.
pp. 1–3The petitioner relied on the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in custody and produced the finance company’s no-objection certificate.
pp. 1–3The State informed the Court that the vehicle had previously been seized in another prohibition case.
pp. 1–302Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court could direct interim release of a vehicle seized in a prohibition case notwithstanding the confiscation provisions of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
p. 2, 4ii.2. Whether the vehicle should be released on conditions despite its reported prior involvement in a similar offence.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution, together with the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, were invoked in seeking release of the vehicle.
p. 1The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which discourages keeping seized vehicles in police custody for long periods and supports release on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.
p. 4It also referred to M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the rule that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not create an absolute bar to interim release, and that a court may make appropriate custody orders under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 497 of the BNSS).
p. 4The Court also referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat.
p. 3Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 99Section 65Section 98Section 81
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 497
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the petitioner was the registered owner and that continued police custody risked deterioration of the vehicle.
pp. 3–5Applying Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, it held that the prohibition-law confiscation provision did not prevent interim release.
pp. 3–5The vehicle’s reported prior involvement in a similar offence weighed in favour of imposing additional safeguards, rather than refusing release: the Court required a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price, an undertaking not to transfer it, production when directed, and warned that a subsequent offence would result in confiscation.
pp. 3–505Holding
The petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to release the vehicle subject to the stated surety, undertaking and production conditions, along with the additional condition arising from its reported prior involvement.
p. 5Before release, the police must photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost; these records are to form part of the charge-sheet papers.
pp. 5–6The RTO must be notified of the restriction on transfer pending trial, subject to any order of the trial court permitting transfer.
pp. 5–6The rule was made absolute.
p. 6Original Court PDF
BAPUSINGH MEHARSINGH TOMARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
