This judgment is about whether a commercial truck seized by police for illegally carrying a massive batch of foreign liquor in Gujarat can be released back to its owner while the criminal trial is still ongoing. The lower courts had refused to release the truck, pointing to a strict provision in the Gujarat Prohibition Act that bars releasing vehicles used in liquor smuggling. However, the Supreme Court stepped in and ruled that this law isn’t an absolute block, ordering the truck to be returned to its owner on a security bond so it doesn’t sit rusting and rotting away in a police yard for years while waiting for the trial to finish.
During the night of January 4–5, 2025, Gujarat Police stopped an Ashok Leyland truck owned by the transport company M/s ABC Express. While the vehicle was carrying normal edible goods worth nearly ₹98.6 Lakh, officers searched the cargo and discovered 8,064 hidden bottles of illegal Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) valued at around ₹17 Lakh. The police arrested the driver on the spot, seized the truck, and filed a formal charge-sheet under various sections of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.
M/s ABC Express applied to the local Magistrate for interim custody of its truck under Section 497 BNSS, arguing that as the vehicle’s owner, it had no knowledge of the driver’s illegal activity and that keeping the truck idle at the police station would cause it to rot and lose value. The Magistrate, Sessions Court, and Gujarat High Court all rejected the request, holding that Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act strictly bars the release of vehicles seized with large quantities of liquor until the trial concludes. The transport company then appealed this rejection to the Supreme Court.
What was held finally : Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not completely block a court from releasing a seized vehicle back to its owner while the trial is still pending. Courts must use their power under Section 451 CrPC (or Section 497 BNSS) to grant interim custody on reasonable terms, ensuring that vehicles do not sit around rusting and losing value in police station yards for years. The court can easily protect the state’s interest and trial evidence by taking a security bond, preparing a detailed panchnama, and taking photos or videos of the vehicle before releasing it.
The Supreme Court held that lower courts cannot refuse to release a seized vehicle solely because of Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, as that provision is not an absolute bar to granting interim custody. Reaffirming its long-standing stance against letting vehicles rot and lose roadworthiness in police yards during lengthy trials, the Court ruled that Magistrates must use their discretion under Section 451 CrPC (now Section 497 BNSS) to release vehicles to their owners on proper security. To balance the trial’s needs, the Court directed that the truck be returned to its owner after securing a ₹15 lakh personal bond and preserving evidence through detailed panchnama, photos, and video recordings.
Here is what the judgment discusses regarding laws:
- Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949: The Court interpreted Section 98(2) to clarify that its restrictions on releasing property carrying contraband do not act as an absolute bar against granting interim custody to the owner.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): The Court reaffirmed that Section 451 CrPC (and Section 497 BNSS) gives trial courts broad discretion to grant interim release of seized property expeditiously to prevent loss and decay.
- Constitution of India (Articles 226 & 227): The Court noted these provisions were invoked by the owner to challenge the lower courts’ refusal of interim release, while reiterating that applicants should ordinarily seek statutory remedy under procedural law first.
- Indian Forest Act, 1927: The Court distinguished this law, noting that its specialized state amendments strictly exclude judicial jurisdiction over seized property once formal confiscation proceedings are initiated.
- Gujarat Animal Preservation Act, 1954: The Court briefly referenced past precedent under this Act to show it was irrelevant to the vehicle confiscation issues under prohibition law.
Citation: 2026 INSC 940, delivered in Criminal Appeal No. 4172 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10301 of 2026) titled M/s ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, decided on September 02, 2026, by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar.
