5 min readVadodaraUpdated: Sep 4, 2026 04:56 AM IST
A truck seized on a Gujarat highway, allegedly with more than 8,000 bottles of prohibited liquor, cannot be left to “languish and deteriorate” in a police station for years while the criminal case moves through the courts, the Supreme Court has ruled, ordering the vehicle’s release to the owner.
A bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar on Wednesday asked “what purpose is actually served by continued custody and placing the vehicle in a state of suspended animation” once seized under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949.
The ruling came in a case arising from the seizure of an Ashok Leyland truck travelling towards Vadodara through Lunawada in January 2025. The police allegedly found 8,064 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL), concealed among other goods, in the vehicle.
The Supreme Court said that allowing seized commercial vehicles to remain unused in police or court compounds until the conclusion of a trial served little purpose and inflicted substantial losses on their owners.
“Vehicles, prevented from being released back to their owners under Section 98(2), languish and deteriorate sitting in a police station or court compound until final disposal of the criminal case. This benefits no one and causes major losses to the owner,” the bench observed.
The court overturned orders of the Gujarat High Court, a sessions court, and a magistrate, which had refused to hand over interim custody of the truck to its owner, M/s ABC Express.
When the police intercepted the truck
The case relates to an incident that occurred on the intervening night of January 4 and 5 last year when the police intercepted a truck travelling from Modasa towards Vadodara via Lunawada in Gujarat.
Story continues below this ad
The truck driver allegedly told the police that the vehicle was carrying miscellaneous goods belonging to ABC Express. When the police opened the rear compartment, however, they found plastic bags, boxes, and cardboard cartons containing liquor. The driver could not produce a pass or permit authorising its transportation, according to the prosecution.
The police allegedly recovered 8,064 bottles of IMFL, amounting to about 22,532 litres and valued at Rs 17.02 lakh. The truck was also carrying edible transport goods worth nearly Rs 98.67 lakh. A chargesheet was later filed against four accused, including the driver.
Truck owner cites financial loss
The owner sought interim custody of the truck, arguing that it was a commercial vehicle and that its continued detention would cause financial loss while it deteriorated. The company also maintained that the owner was not involved in the alleged offence and offered to furnish adequate security.
The state opposed the release under Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which provides that a conveyance used to carry liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity shall not be released on bond or surety until the final judgment of the court.
Story continues below this ad
The Supreme Court rejected the interpretation that the provision created an absolute prohibition on interim release. “Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is not absolute embargo,” the bench said, holding that criminal courts retain the power to make appropriate orders regarding the interim custody of seized property.
The court said the lower courts had “seriously erred in taking a narrow view” of their powers and had failed to consider the settled principles governing the custody of seized vehicles. It pointed to the practical reality of commercial vehicles left unused for prolonged periods in police custody.
What purpose is served?: Supreme Court
In this case, the Supreme Court said that continued seizure was causing the owner “real and ongoing loss of livelihood”, while the truck occupied space and was “deteriorating and losing value with each passing day”.
“What purpose is actually served by continued custody and placing the vehicle in a state of suspended animation,” the bench asked.
Story continues below this ad
With the chargesheet already filed, the court said the evidentiary value of the truck could be preserved through a detailed panchnama, photographs, and videos, instead of keeping the physical vehicle in police custody indefinitely.
The prospect that the truck could eventually be confiscated under the Gujarat Prohibition Act was also no reason to deny interim custody, the court said. The Act provides an independent confiscation process, including notice and an opportunity of hearing to the owner, which could continue separately.
The Supreme Court ordered the truck’s release on a personal bond and appropriate security of Rs 15 lakh, laying down conditions that the owner must produce the vehicle whenever required by investigators or the trial court and cannot sell it or create third-party rights over it during the pendency of the case.
The Supreme Court also stated that if the vehicle is “ultimately ordered to be confiscated”, the trial court may proceed against the security and take further action permitted under law. The court clarified that its observations were limited to the question of interim custody and would not affect the pending criminal trial.
