Honda City Seized In Prohibition Case To Be Released On Conditions As Gujarat HC Applies SC Ruling That Section 98(2) Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

The petitioner sought release of a Honda City seized by police after it was allegedly found carrying contraband without a pass or permit.

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

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat and produced a finance company’s no-objection certificate for release of the vehicle.

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

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and referred to Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning interim custody of property.

Relying on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, it noted that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be handed over on appropriate bond, guarantee, and security, subject to their return when required.

It also relied on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, for the proposition that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, and that the court may make an appropriate custody order.

The Court also referred to the coordinate-bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, S.C.R.A. No. 7190 of 2017, as an example of release under Articles 226 and 227.

The Court considered that retaining the vehicle at the police station risked its deterioration, consistent with the concern expressed in Sunderbhai.

It treated the State’s objection based on confiscation provisions as insufficient to prevent interim release, given M/s ABC Express’s clarification that Section 98(2) does not impose an absolute embargo.

The vehicle could therefore be released while preserving the interests of the trial through surety, an undertaking against transfer, an obligation to produce the vehicle, and photographic and panchnama documentation.

Before release, police were to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both included in the charge-sheet papers.

The order also directed that a copy be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the trial court; the judgment further provided for confiscation in the event of a subsequent offence.