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

NO. 12053 of 2025 ==========================================================

AJAYBHAI MANSUKHBHAI KANTARIYA POA OF RAMESHBHAI BABUBHAI PARMAR Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS. RESHMA G RAUMA (10143) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

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 497 and 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e Maruti Suzuki Company Ecco Car bearing Registration No. GJ-23-CE-3205 detained in connection with the FIR No. 11198067250212 of 2025 registered with Vartej Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offences punishable under provisions of the Gujarat Prohibition Act.

2. Though served nobody appeared for the Respondent finance company. Rule. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent.

3. 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 as aforesaid came to be registered for the offence punishable under the Prohibition Act.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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,