Gujarat HC: No Absolute Bar on Interim Release of Vehicles Seized Under Prohibition Act

In a decisive intervention against the decay of seized property in police custody, the Gujarat High Court has reaffirmed that statutory provisions under prohibition laws do not constitute an absolute bar against the interim release of vehicles pending trial. The Court underscored that keeping seized vehicles unattended in police stations until they become junk serves no purpose, mandating their release upon sufficient security to preserve their utility and value.

Justice J. C. Doshi, exercising extraordinary jurisdiction, heard the petition seeking the release of a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga seized in connection with a liquor transport offence. The Bench navigated the intersection of special local laws and general procedural codes to facilitate the return of the asset to its owner under strict judicial safeguards.

Interplay between BNSS and Prohibition Act

The Court examined the petitioner's plea for the release of the vehicle under Article 226 and Constitution of India of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Despite objections from the State regarding the confiscation provisions within Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, the Court noted that the judiciary retains the power to order the release of a vehicle whenever appropriate to prevent it from becoming 'junk'.

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the price of the vehicle in question stated in the FIR.

(ii) shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the learned Trial Court. (

iii) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle shall stand confiscated. Before release of the vehicle, concerned police authority shall take photographs of the vehicle from all sides at the cost of the petitioner and shall draw necessary panchanama to that effect. Said panchanama and photographs shall be part of charge sheet papers for the purpose of trial."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

Background

The dispute originated when Navsari Rural Police intercepted a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga VXI and allegedly found liquor being carried without a permit, leading to an FIR under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The petitioner, seeking possession of the 'Muddamal' vehicle, provided an undertaking and an NOC from the finance company, promising to pay installments and not transfer the vehicle.

The Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State Of Gujarat ( "AIR 2003 SC 638": 2002 CaseBase(SC) 113), where the Apex Court lamented the scenario of vehicles becoming junk at police stations. Furthermore, the Court cited M/s ABC Express Vs. State of Gujarat ( "2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 900), which clarified the relationship between the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949, confirming the Court's competency to grant interim custody. Following the logic in Musa Khan Jat Vs. State of Gujarat, the High Court allowed the petition, directing the release of the vehicle subject to solvent surety and photographic documentation to be used during the trial.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application No. 10232 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:68926
Case Title: Sameer Sadanand Purkar Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Alay S Sheth
For the Respondent(s): Mr PM Dave, Ms Dhwani R. Tripathi, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 31963