M/S ABC Express v. State of Gujarat, 2026 INSC 940 (2 September 2026)
Criminal Appeal No. 4172 of 2026 | Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Shree Chandrashekhar
What the case was about
When police in Gujarat seize a truck found carrying illegal liquor, the owner can be left in legal limbo for years while the criminal trial runs its course. The Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 states that any conveyance used to transport seized liquor exceeding the prescribed quantity shall not be released on bond or surety until the final judgment. The Supreme Court was asked whether this language creates an unbreakable lock on the vehicle, ousting the ordinary power of criminal courts to order interim custody under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, even when the truck is decaying in a police compound and the owner is ready to furnish substantial security. The appeal arose after the Gujarat High Court upheld the refusal to return a seized Ashok Leyland truck to its transport-company owner pending trial.
The key facts
On the intervening night of 4–5 January 2025, police intercepted an Ashok Leyland truck bearing registration number RJ-14-GQ-22692 near Lunawada in Gujarat. The vehicle belonged to M/S ABC Express. Hidden among its cargo of edible transport goods, officers discovered 8,064 bottles of Indian-Made Foreign Liquor, totalling approximately 22,532 litres. Police registered a crime report and subsequently filed a chargesheet under the Gujarat Prohibition Act, 1949 against the driver and other accused persons. The appellant, asserting ownership of the truck, filed an application seeking its interim release pending trial.
The appellant lost at every prior stage. The Chief Judicial Magistrate at Lunawada rejected Muddamal Application No. 7 of 2025 on 22 May 2025. The Sessions Judge affirmed that decision on 7 August 2025. The Gujarat High Court then dismissed the constitutional challenge under Articles 226 and 227 in R/Special Criminal Application No. 12264 of 2025. The appellant moved the Supreme Court, and its special leave petition was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 4172 of 2026.
The questions before the Court
The bench framed two closely linked questions. First, does Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act impose an absolute bar on interim custody, displacing the general framework of Section 451 of the Cr.P.C.? Second, independent of that provision, does a criminal court retain the power to direct interim custody of a seized vehicle to its owner while the prohibition trial remains pending?
What the Court decided and why
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the courts below, and directed that the truck be handed over to the appellant on an interim basis.
The Court held that Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act is “not absolute embargo” on interim release (para 11). The sub-section was amended to add a clause that conveyances carrying liquor above the prescribed quantity shall not be released on bond or surety until final judgment, but the bench found the wording infelicitous. The conjunction “but” does not create a coherent exception to the main provision, and the sub-section must be read harmoniously with Sections 451, 457, 458 and 459 of the Cr.P.C., which empower criminal courts to pass appropriate orders for the custody of seized property pending inquiry or trial. The trial court was therefore bound to exercise those powers rather than treat the statute as an automatic bar.
The judgment underscored the foundational principle that seized property should not be kept in official custody a moment longer than necessary. The Court reiterated that “the object and scheme of the various provisions of the Code appear to be that where the property which has been the subject-matter of an offence is seized by the police it ought not to be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary” (para 12). The bench also took judicial notice of the practical reality that vehicles left idle at police stations occupy valuable space and are “prone to fast natural decay on account of weather conditions” (para 13). Citing the very Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Prohibition Act, the Court observed that vehicles prevented from being released under Section 98(2) “languish and deteriorate sitting in a police station or court compound until final disposal of the criminal case,” benefiting no one while inflicting major losses on the owner (para 10).
The Supreme Court found that the lower courts had erred by declining interim release “solely on the strength of Section 98(2) of the Prohibition Act without examining either the settled principles governing interim custody of seized vehicles or the effect of the amendment to the provision that took effect from 31.07.2024” (para 16). With the chargesheet already filed, any remaining evidentiary value could be secured without forcing the truck to remain in prolonged police custody.
Accordingly, the Court directed handover of the vehicle to the appellant subject to conditions enumerated in paragraph 17. These included furnishing a personal bond together with security of ₹15,00,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court; undertaking to produce the truck whenever directed; refraining from creating any third-party interest in the vehicle during the pendency of the trial; and allowing the Investigating Officer to prepare a detailed panchnama with photographs and videography before handover. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to interim custody and would not influence the merits of the pending trial.
Why it matters
The ruling prevents a rigid, literal reading of a special prohibition statute from eclipsing the broader safeguards built into the Cr.P.C. By holding that Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act does not amount to an automatic bar, the Supreme Court has shielded owners from the severe hardship of watching a livelihood asset waste away for years while procedural formalities continue. The judgment reaffirms that statutory language must be harmonised with the trial court’s duty to minimise undue loss, and that evidence can be preserved through documented inspection rather than indefinite physical seizure. For transport operators and vehicle owners across Gujarat, the decision clarifies that interim custody remains a viable and legally sound remedy even when charges involve large quantities of prohibited liquor.