-
by sayum
07 April 2026 10:06 AM
“In the absence of any confiscation action, the seized vehicle cannot be left to rot at the police station – interim release is necessary to prevent deterioration” – In a significant ruling Gujarat High Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the release of a muddamal (seized) vehicle detained under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, where no confiscation proceedings had been initiated despite the lapse of time.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar held that in such circumstances, continued police custody of the vehicle is unjustified, particularly when the vehicle is not being used as evidence and is exposed to weather and deterioration.
The Court allowed the petition moved by Maheshbhai Raja Jaru, the Power of Attorney holder of Ahir Enterprise, whose goods vehicle was seized for allegedly transporting liquor. Citing delay by the authorities in initiating mandatory confiscation action under amended Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, the Court ordered release of the vehicle on strict conditions, making it clear that this does not bar future confiscation proceedings.
“Delay in Initiating Confiscation Under Section 98(2) Defeats the Purpose – Vehicle Must Be Released”
“When statutory authorities fail to act under Section 98, the Court must step in to prevent unnecessary hardship and damage to private property” – Gujarat High Court
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 and Section 497 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (the provision corresponding to Section 451 CrPC) seeking interim custody of his seized goods carrier vehicle, an Ashok Leyland bearing registration number GJ-16-AV-9994, which was detained in connection with FIR No. 11195050250822/2025 registered under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
The FIR alleged that the vehicle was intercepted while transporting liquor illegally, and the driver was found without any license or permit.
However, despite the seizure involving liquor above the 20-litre threshold—which, under the amended Section 98(2) of the Act mandates confiscation—no confiscation or auction proceedings had been initiated by the authorities, and the vehicle remained unused at the police station.
“Mere Pendency of FIR Cannot Justify Indefinite Retention of Property” – High Court Applies Landmark Sunderbhai Ratio
“When no confiscation proceedings are initiated despite the power existing under the statute, seizure cannot continue endlessly” – Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
The Court cited the authoritative judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283, where the Supreme Court lamented how vehicles rot in police stations for years and directed judicial officers to apply their minds to release them when no longer required as evidence.
Further, the High Court relied upon its own recent precedent in Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 285, reinforcing that inaction on confiscation cannot lead to indefinite deprivation of property.
In this case, the State was unable to show that any steps were taken by the police to either approach the Magistrate for confiscation or commence auction proceedings, despite the amendment to Section 98(2) on 31.07.2024 which mandates such action where liquor transported exceeds 20 litres.
“The respondent-authority failed to show or point out that, after the amendment under Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act, confiscation of the seized vehicle is being done… In absence of any such material or initiation of confiscation of vehicle, it is expedient to avoid the situation of vehicle getting deteriorated pending the trial.”
“High Court’s Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Remains Intact Where There Is Delay, Inaction or Prejudice”
The Court emphasized that its powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution remain available when statutory mechanisms are either misused or not used at all, especially where private property is involved and no progress is made by the State.
Rejecting the State’s objection that powers under Article 226 ought not to be exercised due to bar under Section 98, the Court held:
“There is no bar under Section 98 in the current facts where no action for confiscation was taken – exercise of writ jurisdiction is justified.”
Court Orders Release With Stringent Conditions to Protect Interests of Both Sides
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed that the Ashok Leyland goods vehicle be released to the petitioner on behalf of the registered owner (Ahir Enterprise), subject to strict undertakings and conditions ensuring accountability and facilitating future proceedings, if required.
Among the key directions issued:
A solvent surety equal to the value of the vehicle must be furnished.
An undertaking that the vehicle will not be transferred, repainted, or altered during trial.
The petitioner must produce the vehicle before the Trial Court whenever directed.
If confiscation proceedings are initiated later, the vehicle must be returned to the authority.
Any repeat offence will result in automatic confiscation.
Photographs and panchanama must be prepared by the police before release.
The RTO must be informed, and transfer of ownership is barred during trial without Court approval.
“This order shall not preclude the learned Magistrate/Authority from passing any order under Section 98(2) to initiate confiscation or auction of the vehicle,” the Court clarified.
“Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Vehicles Decay Due to State Inaction”: A Pro-Property Rights Judgment
This judgment reinforces the position that confiscation is a legal process that must follow the law, and mere seizure or FIR registration does not entitle the State to indefinitely hold a private vehicle without initiating appropriate proceedings.
It underlines the Constitutional protection to property and procedural fairness, while also ensuring that public interest in prohibition enforcement is not compromised.
Date of Decision: 04 November 2025
