Gujarat High Court Permits Interim Release of Seized Vehicle in Prohibition Case

The High Court of Gujarat has dismantled the absolute embargo on releasing vehicles seized under prohibition laws, ruling that judicial discretion to grant interim custody remains intact despite statutory confiscation clauses. This decision reinforces the principle that keeping seized property unattended in police stations serves no purpose and causes unnecessary decay.

In a significant move to prevent the deterioration of seized assets, a single-judge bench of Justice J. C. Doshi heard a petition seeking the release of a Car Ertiga seized in connection with a liquor-related offence. The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, alongside inherent powers under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant relief to the vehicle owner.

Key Takeaways

Interim Custody is Not Barred

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not act as an absolute bar against the interim release of vehicles pending trial.

Prevention of Asset Deterioration

Courts must prioritize the release of seized vehicles to prevent them from becoming 'junk' in police station premises due to lack of maintenance.

Judicial Discretion Upheld

Even in cases involving potential confiscation, Magistrates and High Courts retain the power to pass orders for proper custody under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Balance of State Interest

Security measures like solvent sureties and undertakings against transfer ensure that the state's interest in the property is protected during the trial.

Court's Rationale on Interim Custody

The Court noted that the petitioner sought the release of a vehicle intercepted by police for allegedly carrying liquor without a permit. The prosecution, while citing confiscation provisions, could not dispute the Court's authority to order release under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 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 highlighted the negative impact of keeping vehicles unattended at police stations.

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."

Furthermore, the Court referenced M/s ABC Express Vs. State of Gujarat ( "2026 LiveLaw (SC) 885": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 900) to clarify the interplay between procedural criminal law and specific prohibition statutes, noting that the Court is competent to exercise powers to pass appropriate orders for proper custody. Similar relief was also noted in Musa Khan Jat Vs. State of Gujarat by a coordinate bench.

Directions Issued to Trial Court and Police

The Court has the following directions:

"The learned Trial Court / authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner being Car Ertiga bearing RTO registration No. RJ-27-TB-1498 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:

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

(ii) shall file undertaking before the learned Trial Court that he shall not transfer the vehicle till final disposal of the trial.

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

(iv) 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."

Ratio

Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 does not operate as an absolute embargo against the release of a seized vehicle on interim custody pending trial; the Court remains competent under Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (or Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) to exercise powers for its proper custody to prevent the asset from becoming junk.

Background

The dispute originated from an FIR registered at Himmatnagar “A” Division Police Station under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 after police intercepted the vehicle and found the driver carrying liquor without a permit. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the release of the vehicle (Muddamal) while the trial was pending. The State opposed the release, citing the confiscation provisions within the prohibition law. However, the High Court, following the settled law that vehicles should not be left to decay in police custody, allowed the petition and directed the release of the car subject to specific conditions and an entry in the RTO register to prevent illegal transfer.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application No. 12948 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:71191
Case Title: Vikramsinh Mavsinh Chavda Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Vishvajitsinh D Chauhan, Mr. Kishan Prajapati
For the Respondent(s): Ms Krina Calla, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 32945