The Court can exercise its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution to release seized vehicles pending trial, imposing appropriate conditions to prevent misuse.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent - State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this petition, seeking to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 and supervisory jurisdiction under S.227 of the Constitution of India for the release of the muddamal vehicle i.e. MAHINDRA KUV - 100 bearing Registration No.GJ - 03 - KP - 3812.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on registration of the FIR being C.R. No.III - 594/2019 registered with Chota Udaipur for the offences under the provision of the Gujarat Prohibition Act , the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized as muddamal in connection with the aforesaid offence, however, the said vehicle is duly registered with the transport department of the Government and in support of it, RC Book is placed on record at Page No.16 of the compilation. He farther submitted that till date, no one has claimed for the interim custody of the muddamal vehicle and if the interim custody of the said vehicle is handed over to the petitioner, he will abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court while handing over the vehicle. He, therefore, urged that this petition may be allowed on suitable conditions.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has urged that this Court has wide powers, while exercising such powers under Art.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 '', reported in 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 - State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and submitted that the vehicle in question was used for transporting liquor by the accused and if this motor vehicle would be released, it will be used for transporting liquor by the petitioner. However after referring to the documents produced on record with regard registration of certification and Identity Card, it is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle.

6. Learned APP for the respondent - State has urged this Court that the appropriate conditions be imposed, while ordering the release of the vehicle. He further pointed out that this Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in the case of '' ANILKUMAR RAMLAL @ RAMANLALJI MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT '' in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018, Dated: 05.04.2018, and in the earlier decision in '' PARESHKUMAR JAYKARBHAI BRAHMBHATT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT '' in Special Criminal Application No. 8521 of 2017 and the allied matters decided on 15.12.2017,(Reported in (2018) 1 Guj LR 558 )has held that the powers of the Magistrate to order interim release of the seized vehicle under S.98(2) of the said Act has been curtailed, and therefore, the Courts below have been held to have no jurisdiction to order interim release of the vehicle, pending trial, where, the vehicle is seized in connection with the offence under the Prohibition Act and the quantity of the liquor seized exceeds 10 liters. He, further, urged that, of course, powers of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution to order release of the vehicle can be exercised at any time, whenever the Court deems it appropriate. He also pointed out that the recent decision of this Court in Special Criminal Application No. 2185 of 2018, where, this Court, in exercise of the powers under Art.226 of the Constitution, has ordered the release of the vehicle, pending trial. He has also pointed out the order passed by this Court in Special Crim