Registered Owner’s Jupiter Seized In Liquor Case To Be Released On Vehicle-Value Surety: Gujarat HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the confiscation provision in Section 98(2).

The court held

The petition was allowed, and the authorities were directed to release the scooter upon the petitioner furnishing a solvent surety equal to the vehicle’s price stated in the FIR, undertaking not to transfer it until final disposal of the trial, 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 to photograph the vehicle from all sides and prepare a panchnama, with both to form part of the charge-sheet papers.

The order was to be sent to the concerned RTO to record the restraint on transfer, subject to any later order of the Trial Court permitting transfer.

01Facts

The petitioner, the registered owner of a Jupiter scooter, sought its interim release after it was seized in an alleged liquor-transportation offence under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 116-B, 98(2) and 81 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.

pp. 1–2

The Magistrate rejected his release application, and the Sessions Court dismissed his revision.

pp. 1–2

The petitioner then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arguing that continued police custody risked deterioration of the vehicle

pp. 1–2

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could order interim release of a vehicle seized in a Gujarat Prohibition Act case notwithstanding the confiscation provision in Section 98(2).

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the seized scooter should be released to its registered owner, and, if so, on what safeguards.

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

Section 497 of the BNSS provides for orders concerning the custody and disposal of property pending trial; the Court also referred to the corresponding power under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

pp. 3–4

The Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate at police stations and may be entrusted to their owners on appropriate bonds, guarantees and security.

pp. 3–4

Relying on M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, the Court stated that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle pending trial.

p. 4

It also relied on the coordinate Bench decision in Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle in an analogous case.

p. 3

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 497

Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. Section 65 Section 98 Section 81

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451

04Reasoning

The petitioner was the registered owner, and the vehicle had been seized in connection with the pending FIR.

p. 3

Applying the principles in Sunderbhai and M/s ABC Express, the Court concluded that the possibility of confiscation under Section 98(2) did not, by itself, prevent interim release.

pp. 3–5

In view of the risk of deterioration while the vehicle remained in police custody, it ordered release subject to conditions securing the vehicle’s availability and preservation of evidence.

pp. 3–5