Rickshaw Seized In Liquor Case To Be Released On Surety As Gujarat HC Says Prohibition Act Is No Absolute Bar To Interim Custody

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 Act’s confiscation provisions

The court held

The High Court allowed the petition and directed release of the rickshaw on the stated conditions.

It also directed

It further directed that, before release, police take photographs from all sides and prepare a panchanama, and that the order be sent to the relevant RTO to record the restraint on transfer pending trial, subject to any later order of the trial court.

The petition was allowed and the Rule made absolute

01Facts

Police seized the petitioner’s Bajaj RE CNG rickshaw, registration No. GJ-18-BY-4746, after its driver was allegedly found carrying liquor without a pass or permit.

p. 1

An FIR was registered at Chandkheda Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act

p. 1

The petitioner’s application for release of the vehicle was rejected by the Sessions Court on 29 August 2026.

p. 1

He sought release before the High Court, submitting that the vehicle risked deterioration while in custody and producing a no-objection certificate from its financier.

pp. 1–2

The State objected by reference to the Act’s confiscation provisions but accepted that the High Court could order release in an appropriate case.

p. 2

02Issues

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

pp. 2–4

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s vehicle should be released on interim custody, and on what safeguards

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant appropriate relief, including release of seized property in a proper case.

pp. 2–3

Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) permits the court to make appropriate orders for the custody of property pending trial; Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not impose an absolute bar on interim release of a seized vehicle.

p. 4

In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, the Supreme Court observed that seized vehicles should not be left to deteriorate and may be returned on suitable bonds and safeguards.

pp. 3–4

The Court also relied on Musa Khan Jat v. State of Gujarat, SCR.A/7190/2017, concerning release of a vehicle under Articles 226 and 227, and M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885, on the interaction between interim-custody powers and the Gujarat Prohibition Act’s confiscation provisions.

pp. 3–4

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 was the registered owner of the seized vehicle, and the High Court considered the risk that continued police custody would cause its deterioration.

p. 2, 4

Applying Sunderbhai and the cited authorities, the Court held that the confiscation provisions did not prevent interim release where appropriate safeguards could protect the vehicle’s production and preserve the trial court’s control over it.

pp. 3–4

It therefore ordered release subject to a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price as stated in the FIR, an undertaking not to transfer it pending trial, and production whenever directed; it also required photographs and a panchanama before release.

p. 5