ILESH J. VORA, J.

1. Rule. Learned APP waives Rule for the respondent-State. 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Alto 800 LXI, bearing RTO registration No.GJ-13-AB-6847.

2. 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 being III-C.R. No.11993001210384 of 2021 came to be registered at Samakhial Police Station, Dist.: Kachchh Gandhidham, for the offence punishable under the Prohibition Act.

3. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondent State.

4. 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 [LQ/SC/2002/1036 ;] , 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 objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and 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, has held that the powers of the Magistrate to order interim release of the seized vehicle under Section 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. Learned APP further, 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.

6. 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.

7. 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, 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."

8. The Apex Court has, thus, directed that within a period of six months from the date of production of the vehicle before the Court concerned, needful be done. It even went to the extent of directing that where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then insurance company be informed by the Court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If Insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the Court. The Court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the Court. It also directed that before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and a detailed panchnama should also be prepared. The Apex Court also held and specifically directed that concerned Magistrate would take immediate action for seeing that powers under Section 451 of the Code are properly and promptly exercised and articles are not kept for a long time at the police station, in any case, for not more than fifteen days to one month. It, therefore, directed that this object can also be achieved if there is proper supervision by the Registry of the concerned High Court in seeing that the rules framed by the High Court with regard to such articles are implemented properly.

9. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The authority concerned is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner, being Vehicle i.e Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Alto 800 LXI, bearing RTO registration No.GJ-13-AB-6847, 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 when directed by the trial Court;

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

(v) 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.

10. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. Direct Service permitted.