Registered Owner To Get Seized Car Back In Liquor Case, As Gujarat HC Applies SC Ruling That Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Release

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

The court held

The petition was allowed and the vehicle ordered to be released upon the petitioner furnishing solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until the trial’s final disposal, and producing it when directed.

It also directed

The order further provided that the vehicle would stand confiscated in the event of a subsequent offence. Before release, police were directed to photograph the vehicle and prepare a panchnama at the petitioner’s cost, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers. A copy of the order was to be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court.

01Facts

Police intercepted a car, registration No. GJ-24-AA-5004, allegedly carrying liquor without a pass or permit. An FIR was registered at Bhiloda Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner, the vehicle’s registered owner, sought its release; he produced a No Objection Certificate from the financier, Cholamandlam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd.

pp. 1–2 · ¶ 2–5

The State opposed release in view of the Act’s confiscation provisions, while acknowledging the High Court’s power to order release under Article 226.

p. 3 · ¶ 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case despite the Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 6–10

ii.2. Whether the petitioner, as the registered owner and with the financier’s NOC, was entitled to release of the vehicle subject to safeguards.

pp. 2, 4–5 · ¶ 5, 10–13

03Law Applied

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to order release of seized property where appropriate; the Court also invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the power under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning custody and disposal of property.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 7–9

The Court relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, which cautions against keeping seized vehicles at police stations for prolonged periods and supports interim release on suitable bonds, guarantees, and security.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 7–9

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, 1949, is not an absolute bar to interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial, and on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, where the High Court ordered release in an analogous case.

pp. 2–4 · ¶ 5, 7–9

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 98

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s registered ownership and the financier’s NOC supported his claim to custody. Although the State relied on the Act’s confiscation provisions, the Court applied M/s ABC Express to conclude that those provisions did not absolutely prevent interim release.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 5–12

It also considered the risk of seized vehicles deteriorating in police custody, as discussed in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai. The Court therefore granted release while imposing security and preservation conditions intended to protect the vehicle’s availability and prevent its transfer pending trial.

pp. 2–5 · ¶ 5–12