DEVANGBHAI GANPATBHAI RATHODversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     R/SCR.A/2930/2026                                             ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

 R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (POSSESSION OF MUDDAMAL)
                      NO. 2930 of 2026

==========================================================
                         DEVANHBHAI GANPATBHAI RATHOD
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRUNAL S MEHTA(9227) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR FEHAD A MEMON(13378) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS ASHMITA PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                                    Date : 16/03/2026

                                     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
and Section 497 of BNSS with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e
Amaze 1.2 EXMT (Make Honda Cars India Ltd.) bearing RTO
registration No. GJ-15-CB-5926.

2.     Rule. Learned APP waives notice of rule for and on behalf of the
respondents.


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, it was found that the Accused was carrying liquor without any


                                         Page 1 of 4
     R/SCR.A/2930/2026                              ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




pass or permit. Therefore, an FIR being CR. NO. 11200019251556 of
2025 for the offence punishable under the Prohibition Act came to be
registered before the Dungri Police Station, Valsad.

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 respondents has objected the submissions
made by learned advocate for the petitioner and urged that, of course,
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



                                 Page 2 of 4
     R/SCR.A/2930/2026                                   ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




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 return of such
               vehicles."

9.     Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The authority concerned is
directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, being Amaze 1.2 EXMT
(Make Honda Cars India Ltd.) bearing RTO registration No. GJ-15-CB-
5926 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner:
         (i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the
              value of the vehicle in question as per the value disclosed in
              the seizure memo or panchnama.

         (ii) shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that prior to
               alienation or transfer in any mode or manner, prior
               permission of the concerned Court shall be taken till
               conclusion of the trial;

         (iii) shall also file an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and

                                     Page 3 of 4
       R/SCR.A/2930/2026                                                    ORDER DATED: 16/03/2026




                   when directed by the trial Court;

            (iv) in the event of any subsequent offence, the vehicle shall
                 stand Confiscated.

10.       Before handing over the possession of the vehicle to the
petitioner, necessary photographs shall be taken and a detailed
panchnama in that regard, if not already drawn, shall also be drawn for
the purpose of trial.

11.       Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.




                                                                                (M. R. MENGDEY,J)
SAKSHI MAURYA

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SAKSHI MAURYA(HC02367), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/03/2026 10:51:14




                                                 Page 4 of 4