LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S ABC Express v. State of Gujarat

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 940Decided 2 Sept 2026
Crl.A. No.-004172-004172 - 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10301 of 2026)
Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Shree Chandrashekhar

Background

A truck owned by M/S ABC Express was intercepted in Gujarat's Mahisagar district on the night of 4-5 January 2025 carrying 8,064 bottles of prohibited Indian-Made Foreign Liquor (worth about Rs. 17 lakh) along with legitimate edible goods worth nearly Rs. 99 lakh, driven by a person who had no permit for the liquor. After a chargesheet was filed against four accused (including the driver), the truck owner applied to get interim custody of the seized vehicle pending trial, but the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Judge, and finally the Gujarat High Court all rejected the request, relying on Section 98(2) of the Gujarat Prohibition Act, which the State argued created an absolute bar on releasing vehicles where the seized liquor exceeds a prescribed quantity.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Section 98(2)'s restriction is not an absolute embargo and must be read harmoniously with Section 451 of the CrPC (now BNSS provisions), which gives trial courts broad discretion to order proper custody of seized property pending trial. Relying on its own precedents (Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai, Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala, and General Insurance Council), the Court reiterated that vehicles left indefinitely in police custody serve no purpose, deteriorate, lose value, and cause real hardship to owners, while any evidentiary value can be preserved through panchnama, photographs, and videography instead of holding the physical vehicle. Since the chargesheet had already been filed, the Court found the balance of factors favored releasing the truck to its owner. It set aside the orders of the courts below and directed interim custody of the vehicle to the appellant, subject to strict conditions: a Rs. 15 lakh personal bond with security, an undertaking to produce the vehicle when directed, a bar on transferring interest in it, a detailed panchnama with photos/video before handover, and liberty for the Trial Court to proceed against the security if the vehicle is ultimately confiscated.

Lesson Learnt

A statutory provision barring release of seized property "till final judgment" is not automatically absolute. Courts retain discretion under procedural law (CrPC/BNSS) to release vehicles and property on secure conditions pending trial, since indefinite police custody of a vehicle serves no one and evidentiary needs can usually be met through documentation rather than physical retention.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Family Law

Family LawDelhi High Court

Punam vs. Divisional Commissioner, GNCT of Delhi & Ors.

The Court upheld the validity of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules' eviction provision, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings that such tribunals may order eviction where necessary to protect a senior citizen, and held the rule validly covers daughters-in-law as well as sons and daughters. It further held that eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Rules are legally independent of Domestic Violence Act maintenance proceedings, one does not need to await the other, and that the senior citizen's right to a peaceful life in her own property outweighed the daughter-in-law's claim, especially since the daughter-in-law had her own separate residence and income. The writ petition was dismissed.

Decided 30 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawDelhi High Court

Nav Ratan Sharma vs. Chetna And Anr & Anr.

The High Court held its revisional powers are narrow and don't permit re-weighing evidence absent a clear legal or jurisdictional error, finding none here. The Family Court was entitled to draw an adverse inference given the husband's contradictory statements, concealed bank account, and lack of documentary proof for his claimed salary. The Court also noted that even accepting his figure, the resulting difference in maintenance would be only about Rs. 2,500 total per month: too minor to justify interference. The revision petition was dismissed.

Decided 28 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Shikha v. State of Odisha

The parties ultimately reached an amicable settlement, with the husband paying the agreed permanent alimony in full. Applying its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and following its own precedents on irretrievable breakdown of marriage (Shilpa Sailesh and Rinku Baheti), the Court granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent, dissolving the marriage solemnised on 04-12-2016. It also quashed all pending civil and criminal cases between the parties and directed that neither side file any fresh cases against the other, disposing of both transfer petitions.

Decided 28 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

'R' v. 'E' & Anr.

The CBI's detailed report, based on witness examinations, CCTV footage analysis, and psychiatric/psychological evaluation of the child, concluded that the allegations were not reliable, were contradicted by other evidence, and appeared linked to the ongoing custody dispute rather than genuine abuse. The Supreme Court accepted this report, quashed the FIR as an abuse of process, and also quashed a related, older FIR against the mother. It confirmed that custody of the child should remain with the father, applying the "best interest of the child" principle. Recognising a broader pattern of the POCSO Act being misused as a tactic in matrimonial/custody disputes, the Court laid down specific safeguards to be followed whenever a POCSO allegation is made by one parent against another parent (or a family member) during a pending matrimonial dispute, including caution before arrest, and closer judicial scrutiny of such complaints, and directed that these safeguards be circulated to all criminal courts and police stations in the country.

Decided 24 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty v. Suman Sankar Bhunia

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. After speaking with the children in chambers, the Court made its earlier stay of the High Court's custody order absolute and allowed the mother to relocate the children to the United Kingdom for schooling for the present. She must produce the children before any court when directed. The appeals will be heard in January 2027.

Decided 23 Sept 2026Read case
Family LawSupreme Court of India

Mihir Prakash Bajoria v. Vidushi Jain Bajoria

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning, restating that anti-suit injunctions are an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly. The party seeking one must show the foreign proceedings are oppressive/vexatious or in a forum non conveniens, and that refusal would defeat the ends of justice, per the settled principles in Modi Entertainment Network v. WSG Cricket. Applying these principles, the Court found the UK Family Court was in fact the more convenient forum, since both parties had genuinely established their matrimonial home, residence, and financial life in London for years, giving the UK court substantial connecting factors to the dispute. The husband's argument that a prospective foreign divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would be unenforceable in India under Section 13 CPC was held to be speculative and premature, since the UK proceedings had not yet concluded and the foreign court's own jurisdiction was itself still under adjudication, relying on its own precedent in Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur, which similarly declined to grant anti-suit relief merely because a foreign court might apply a ground for divorce not recognised in India. The Court noted that although the UK court had since passed a conditional divorce decree during the appeal's pendency (which the Supreme Court had separately stayed), that development was outside the scope of this appeal, which was confined only to examining the validity of the original 2025 anti-suit injunction. Finding the High Court's vacation of that injunction legally correct, the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's appeal, while leaving both parties free to raise any grounds regarding the later UK divorce order before the appropriate forum.

Decided 22 Sept 2026Read case