Case at a Glance
Police in Gujarat intercepted a truck carrying 8,064 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor along with edible goods, and the owner’s plea for interim custody was rejected by the magistrate, the Sessions Court and the High Court, citing the bar in Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949. The Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo and must be harmonised with the power of interim custody under Section 451 CrPC. Since the charge-sheet had been filed and the truck was deteriorating, it granted interim custody to the owner on a ₹15 lakh security and other conditions.
On the night of 4–5 January 2025, police intercepted a truck travelling between Modasa and Vadodara via Lunawada. The driver could not produce a permit. Police recovered 8,064 bottles of IMFL (about 22,532 litres, valued at about ₹17.03 lakh); the truck also carried edible goods worth about ₹98.67 lakh. A charge-sheet under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 was filed on 1 March 2025 against four accused, including the driver.
The truck’s owner sought interim custody. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lunawada rejected the application, the Sessions Court affirmed on revision, and the Gujarat High Court dismissed the challenge under Articles 226/227 and Section 528 BNSS. Before the Supreme Court, the owner argued it was not involved in the offence, the trial could take years and the truck was rotting in police custody; the State relied on the amended Section 98(2), which it said barred release on bond or surety.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 absolutely bar the release of a vehicle seized for transporting liquor during the pendency of trial?
Harmonising the Prohibition Act With Interim Custody
The Court held that Section 98(2) is not an absolute embargo and that courts must decide interim custody under Section 451 CrPC (now the corresponding BNSS provision). It followed Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, (2024) 04 SC CK 0016 (2024 INSC 285), which read the second part of Section 98(2) as an embargo to be harmonised with Section 451 CrPC. It also relied on Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SC CK 0036, observing that it is “of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period”, on Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore on restoring seized property when retention is no longer necessary, and on General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2010) 04 SC CK 0024 on the decay of vehicles kept stationary. It distinguished State of Madhya Pradesh v. Uday Singh, (2019) 03 SC CK 0138 (a confiscation regime under the Indian Forest Act) and Multani Hanifbhai Kalubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 02 SC CK 0016.
Applying these principles, the Court found that “continued seizure of the truck causes it real and ongoing loss of livelihood to the appellant”. The charge-sheet had been filed, and any evidentiary value could be preserved through a panchnama, photographs and videography. The Court did, however, note that the appellant had approached the High Court directly instead of moving the trial court under Section 451 CrPC, which was not the proper route. It clarified that its observations were confined to interim custody and expressed no view on the merits of the trial.
What the Court Actually Held
- Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 is not an absolute bar; it must be harmonised with the interim-custody power under Section 451 CrPC.
- Keeping seized vehicles in police stations for long periods serves no purpose and causes deterioration and loss of livelihood.
- The orders of the CJM, Sessions Court and High Court were set aside and interim custody of the truck was granted to the owner.
- Conditions: personal bond with ₹15,00,000 security, production on demand, no alienation, detailed panchnama with photographs and videography, and the security may be proceeded against if the vehicle is later confiscated.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Vehicle owners in prohibition States often face long seizures; this ruling confirms courts can grant interim custody with safeguards.
- It reinforces the Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai principle against vehicles rotting in police stations.
- It reminds litigants to apply first before the trial court under Section 451 CrPC / BNSS.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Vehicle Owners
- Seizure under the Prohibition Act does not automatically mean the vehicle stays locked up till the end of trial.
- Be prepared to offer security and accept conditions such as no sale and production on demand.
For Counsel
- Move the trial court first under Section 451 CrPC (or its BNSS equivalent) before approaching the High Court.
- Cite ABC Express and Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala against a blanket reading of Section 98(2).
- Emphasise filing of the charge-sheet and the availability of panchnama and videography to preserve evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Section 98(2) does not absolutely bar interim release of seized vehicles.
- Interim custody is decided under Section 451 CrPC / BNSS with appropriate safeguards.
- Evidence can be preserved by panchnama, photographs and videography.
- If confiscation is later ordered, the security can be enforced, including by auction.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a vehicle seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act be released before trial ends?
Yes. The Supreme Court held that Section 98(2) is not an absolute bar and granted interim custody of the truck on conditions.
What security did the Court require?
A personal bond with security of ₹15,00,000 to the trial court’s satisfaction, along with other conditions such as no alienation and production when directed.
Where should an owner first apply?
The Court noted that the owner should have moved the trial court under Section 451 CrPC instead of approaching the High Court directly.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has once again prioritised practicality over idle seizure: a truck parked indefinitely at a police station helps neither the prosecution nor its owner.
Practical takeaway: Owners of vehicles seized in liquor cases should apply promptly before the trial court for interim custody, offering security and evidence-preservation safeguards, and cite M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, (2026) 09 SC CK 0095.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com