Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court Judicial Test Likely as Waqf (Amendment) Bill Opens New Front on Constitutional Grounds Defence Under Places of Worship Act Opens Door for ASI's Impleadment: Supreme Court in Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute

It is of No Use to Keep Such Seized Vehicles at the Police Stations for a Long Period: Gujarat High Court Grants Release of Seized Vehicle on Surety

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement dated February 15, 2024, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar, addressed the issue of long-term seizure of vehicles by police authorities. The Court allowed the petition for the release of a vehicle, specifically an Eicher Pro CNG Vehicle, which had been seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

The judgement revolved around the legal provision under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner sought the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the release of the muddamal vehicle, arguing that the continued seizure and the resultant deterioration of the vehicle was unnecessary.

The vehicle in question was seized by police during a patrol after being found transporting liquor without the requisite pass or permit, leading to its confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act. The petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, approached the High Court arguing against the prolonged seizure of the vehicle, which was becoming unutilitarian at the police station.

Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar referenced the precedent set in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, highlighting the problematic nature of vehicles turning into junk due to prolonged seizure. The Court agreed that keeping the seized vehicles at police stations indefinitely serves no practical purpose. It emphasized the need for magistrates to pass orders for the release of such vehicles, taking appropriate bonds and guarantees for their return if required at any stage of the trial.

The High Court directed the release of the petitioner’s vehicle, subject to conditions including furnishing a solvent surety equivalent to the vehicle’s price, an undertaking not to alter the vehicle’s identity, and the requirement to produce the vehicle as directed by the trial court. Additionally, it was ordered that the vehicle’s transfer be restrained till the final disposal of the trial, and any subsequent offence involving the vehicle would lead to its confiscation.

Date of Decision: February 15, 2024.

Babitadevi Ranjitkumar Singh vs. State of Gujarat

Similar News