[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Sikandar Ajam vs The State Of Bihar on 24 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20217 of 2025
======================================================
Sikandar Ajam, S/o Md. Nesar Ansari, Resident of Mohalla- H. No.- G-222,
4th Floor, Gali No.- 14, Badarpur Jaitipur, Extension Part- 2, P.s.- Badarpur,
District- New Delhi- 110044.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate -cum- Collector, District- Darbhanga.
3. The Superintendent of Police, District- Darbhanga.
4. The Officer In-charge of Bahera Police Station, Bahera, District- Darbhanga.
5. The Investigation Officer of Bahera, P.S. Case No.- 479/2024 (present and
then) District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pranab Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Md. Jubair Ansari, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 24-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner in the present case is seeking to
challenge the order of confiscation passed by the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.20217 of 2025 dt.24-12-2025
2/5
Magistrate-cum-Collector, Darbhanga dated 05.05.2025
(Annexure-P/5) and the appellate order passed by Excise
Commissioner, Darbhanga in Excise Appeal Case No. 149 of
2025 dated 15.10.2025 (Annexure-P/7) under the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended up to date) and
the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up to
date).
3. By the impugned order, the vehicle in question
has been ordered to be released from confiscation on payment of
50% of the insured value and 3% over and above the said
amount, in favour of the petitioner. In the case of non-
compliance with the order, the vehicle in question shall be
confiscated.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which he had leased out
under a Vehicle Lease Agreement effective from 8th of
December, 2024, 06:00 P.M. to one Mr./Ms. Shashank availing
the platform provided by Zoomcar Host Services available on
the website of www.zoomcar.com owned and operated by
Zoomcar India Private Limited.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12th of
December, 2024 the vehicle was intercepted at Darbhanga
Patna High Court CWJC No.20217 of 2025 dt.24-12-2025
3/5
transporting total 317.88 liters of foreign liquor. The vehicle was
seized by Bahera Police Darbhanga on 13.12.2024 and an FIR
bearing Bahera P.S. Case No. 479 dated 13.12.2024 has been
registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
6. Learned counsel submits that before the
Competent Authority, these facts were brought to their notice,
but the Confiscating Authority has imposed a penalty of 50% of
the insured value of the vehicle which is highly exaggerated,
unjust and improper. It is further submitted that there is no basis
for imposition of 3% amount over and above the penalty
amount.
7. Learned counsel submits that in the case of
Shantanu Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.
18561 of 2025) and Bimlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(C.W.J.C. No. 19659 of 2025) this Court has already declared
that such imposition of 3% over and above the penalty amount
is fully illegal and has no sanction of law. In some cases order
for re-fund has also been issued.
8. Learned counsel for the State submits that even
though the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the
vehicle in question, the vehicle lease agreement is between him
Patna High Court CWJC No.20217 of 2025 dt.24-12-2025
4/5
and the lessee and whatever rights and liabilities flow from the
said agreement are the matters to be dealt by the parties by
availing private law remedies.
9. Learned counsel for the State further submits that
the vehicle was found transporting 317.88 liters of liquor and in
such circumstances, if the competent authority has imposed
50% of insured value as penalty, no fault may be found with the
same. It is, however, not contested that in some of the cases of
like nature, this Court has taken a view that 30% of the insured
value may be imposed as penalty (see Uday Kant vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 16194 of 2025 decided on
28.11.2025
).
10. Having regard to the submissions noted
hereinabove, finding that the petitioner is not an accused in this
case and he claims that he had provided the vehicle on a rental
basis under the Vehicle Lease Agreement (Annexure-P/2),
without recording any opinion on the same, this Court deems it
just and proper to modify the order of penalty and direct the
Competent Authority to release the vehicle on payment of 30%
of the insured value.
11. So far as the imposition of 3% over and above
the penalty amount is concerned, the same has no sanction of
Patna High Court CWJC No.20217 of 2025 dt.24-12-2025
law and is liable to be set aside.
12. We accordingly set aside that part of the order by
which 3% over and above the penalty amount has been imposed
by the Competent Authority.
13. With the aforesaid modification of the impugned
orders, this writ application is partly allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 24.12.2025
Transmission Date N/A
