Supreme Court says Gujarat’s liquor-law bar on releasing seized vehicles is not absolute; truck ordered returned to owner pending trial

On the intervening night of 4–5 January 2025, police intercepted an Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration no. RJ-14-GQ-22692 at Lunawada, Gujarat, while it was travelling from Modasa towards Vadodara.

The truck, operated by driver Qasid Mohammad Khan, was found carrying 8,064 bottles of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (approximately 22,532.253 litres, valued at ₹17,02,656), concealed among edible transport goods valued at approximately ₹98,66,552; the driver could not produce a valid pass or permit.

An FIR was registered under Sections 65(a), 65(e), 98(2), 81, 116(b) and 83 of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, and a chargesheet was filed against four accused persons, including the driver, on 1 March 2025.

The appellant-owner sought interim custody of the truck under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but the application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court, principally on the basis of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court, contending that the truck was deteriorating while parked and that its evidentiary value could be preserved through documentation.

1. Whether Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 creates an absolute bar against the interim release of a vehicle seized for transporting liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity.

2. Whether, notwithstanding the potential confiscation of the vehicle, the criminal court may exercise its powers under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding provisions governing interim custody, to release the vehicle pending inquiry or trial.

3. Whether the appellant was entitled to interim custody of the truck subject to appropriate safeguards, including security, production of the vehicle and preservation of evidence.

The Court applied Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, which makes conveyances used to transport confiscable liquor liable to confiscation, while holding that its latter portion does not constitute an absolute prohibition on interim release when the vehicle has been produced before the criminal court for custody during inquiry or trial.

Section 451 CrPC empowers the criminal court to make appropriate orders for the custody or disposal of property produced before it; the Court treated this power as operating in a distinct field from confiscation proceedings under Section 98.

The Court relied on Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 285, which harmonised Section 98(2) with Section 451 CrPC and rejected an absolute embargo on release.

It further relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, 2002 INSC 418; Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore, (1977) 4 SCC 358; and General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2010 INSC 225, establishing that seized vehicles should not remain unused and deteriorating in police custody, and that their evidentiary value may ordinarily be preserved through panchnamas, photographs and videography.

The possibility of subsequent confiscation does not, by itself, preclude interim custody where the applicable confiscation regime provides notice and an opportunity of hearing.

The Court held that the courts below had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of Section 98(2) by treating it as an absolute statutory bar.

Section 98 concerns eventual confiscation, whereas the power to order interim custody under Section 451 CrPC concerns the proper preservation and management of property during investigation or trial; the two provisions therefore operate in different fields.

The truck had already been seized, the liquor counted and the chargesheet filed, reducing the need for continued physical retention of the vehicle.

Keeping a commercial truck idle at the police station would cause continuing economic loss and deterioration, while its evidentiary value could be secured through a detailed panchnama, photographs and videography.

The Court also distinguished authorities involving statutory confiscation schemes that expressly excluded the jurisdiction of criminal courts, finding that the Gujarat Prohibition Act did not create such an exclusion.

Accordingly, the balance between the owner’s interest, the State’s interest and the integrity of the trial favoured conditional interim release.

The release was made subject to: (i) a personal bond and appropriate security of ₹15,00,000; (ii) production of the truck before the Investigating Officer or Trial Court whenever directed; (iii) no alienation or creation of third-party interest during trial; (iv) preparation of a detailed panchnama, photographs and videography before release; (v) liberty to proceed against the security or order further action, including auction, if the vehicle is ultimately confiscated; and (vi) compliance with any additional conditions imposed by the Trial Court.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to interim custody and would not affect the merits of the pending criminal trial.