IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)

NO. 14208 of 2025 ==========================================================

MANOJ BHAI RAVJI BHAI CHUNARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR. MOHAMMADFAIZAN M. SHAIKH(18336) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ROHAN RAVAL ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)

No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 16/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

1.1 The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so also inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e Auto Rickshaw having registration No. GJ-01-WA-

9307.

2. The case of the prosecution is that while the police personnel were on patrolling, they received a secret information of the vehicle in question carrying liquor and when police authorities intercepted the same, on carrying out the search of the said vehicle, its driver was found carrying liquor without any pass or permit. Therefore, an FIR being C.R. No. 11191011250272 of 2025 registered with D.C.B Police Station, for the offence punishable under the Prohibition Act.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. It can also take into account the ratio laid down in the case of 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', AIR 2003 SC 638, wherein, the Apex Court lamented the scenario of number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming junk within the police station premises.

5. Learned APP for the respondent has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner in view of the provisions of confiscation of the vehicle contained in the Prohibition Act, however, did not dispute that powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time, whenever the Court deems it appropriate.

6. The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Musa Khan Jat Vs. State of Gujarat (SCR.A/7190/2017), in an identical case, released the vehicle by exercising the power under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. It would be worthwhile to refer profitably at this stage to the observations made by the Apex Court in 'SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT' (Supra), which read as under:

"15. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dholakia, appearing for the State of Gujarat further submitted that at present in the police station premises, number of vehicles are kept unattended and vehicles become junk day by day. It is his contention that appropriate directions should be given to the Magistrates who are dealing with such questions to hand over such vehicles to its owner or to the person from whom the said vehicles are seized by taking appropriate bond and the guarantee for the return of the said vehicles if required by the Court at any point of time.

16. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that this question of handing over vehicles to the person from whom it is seized or to its true owner is always a matter of litigation and a lot of arguments are advanced by the concerned persons.

17. 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. This can be done pending hearing of applications for ret