[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Rajnish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 7 April, 2026
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21052 of 2025
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar Son of Late Nand Kishore Yadav, Resident of village - Juafar,
P.S.- Chhauradano, District- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Excise, Government of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Motihari, East - Champaran.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Motihari, East-Champaran.
6. The Deputy -Superintendent of Police, Motihari, East- Champaran.
7. The S.H.O., P.S.- Kundwa Chainpur, District - East- Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Manu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP-23
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 07-04-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for directing
the respondent to release the black coloured Hero Splendor +
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR05AQ-6299, Chasis No.
MBLHAW115MHE19014 and Engine No. HA11EVMHE
18795, which has been seized in connection with Kundwa
Chainpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025 dated 16.07.2025,
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
2/9
registered under Sections, 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar
Prohibition & Excise Act, 2022 (Amended) against the driver-
cum-owner of the seized motorcycle on account of recovery of
63 liters of illicit country made Nepali liquor.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the
petitioner are that on 13.06.2025 his motorcycle bearing
Registration No. BR05AQ-6299 (Hero Splendor +) having the
same chassis and engine number, as aforesaid was stolen,
leading to lodging of FIR bearing Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 357
of 2025 dated 14.06.2025 under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thereafter, the said motorcycle was seized
by the police during the course of checking the vehicles coming
from Nepal and 63 liters of illicit country made Nepali liquor
was recovered from the said motorcycle, leading to registration
of Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025 under Sections
30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2022
(Amended).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that since the motorcycle of the petitioner had been stolen much
earlier than the day on which the same was seized by the police
in connection with excise act case as also the name of the
petitioner does not find place in the FIR bearing Kundwa
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
3/9
Chainpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025, it cannot be said that either
there was consent of the petitioner or connivance of the owner
of the motorcycle in question, i.e. the petitioner in commission
of the offence. It is also submitted that the records would bear it
out that the involvement of the petitioner in the illegal use of the
motorcycle in question for ferrying illicit liquor has also not
been proved. Thus, it is submitted by relying on judgments
dated 30.01.2024, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Sunaina vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in
2024 SCC Online Pat 851 and the one dt. 18.11.2025, passed in
the case of Ali Ashraf Siddique vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(CWJC No.16421 of 2025) that if the involvement of the owner
of the vehicle is not there in commission of the alleged offence
of transportation of illicit liquor and in such illegal use of the
vehicle, the vehicle cannot be subjected to a confiscation
proceeding.
4. Per contra, though the learned counsel for the
respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the
petitioner for release of the motorcycle in question, however he
has not been able to show any proof of involvement of the
petitioner in the occurrence of recovery of 63 liters of illicit
liquor from the motorcycle in question and moreover, in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
4/9
counter affidavit filed in the present case there is no material to
show any direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner/owner
of the vehicle in commission of the alleged offence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent
that the petitioner had filed an FIR bearing Chhatauni P.S. Case
No. 357 of 2025 under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 on 14.06.2025 in connection with theft of his
motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR05AQ-6299, however
the police could not trace out the same but after more than one
month, the said motorcycle was seized in connection with
Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2025 lodged under
Sections 30(a), 32 and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise
Act, 2022 (Amended) on account of recovery of 63 liters of
illicit liquor and the person arrested from the spot, who was
driving the said motorcycle is also in no way connected to the
petitioner as is apparent from the records. We further find from
the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State that no proof
has been brought on record regarding the involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged crime much less him having any
connivance in the alleged occurrence.
6. At this juncture, we would gainfully refer to the law
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
5/9
laid down by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sunaina (Supra), relevant paragraphs whereof being para nos.
20 to 30 are reproduced herein below:-
"20. The first and foremost thing, which emerges from the
aforesaid discussion of the statutory provisions, is that no
vehicle can be seized or confiscated without its use in
commission of any offence under the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016. Under Section 30 of the Act,
transport of illicit liquor or intoxicant is an offence and in
commission of such offence, a vehicle can be used. As
such, use of the vehicle in transport of illicit
liquor/intoxicant is sine qua non for its seizure and
confiscation. It also emerges that just use of the vehicle to
carry intoxicant or liquor is also not sufficient for its
seizure and confiscation. The involvement or connivance
of the owner of the vehicle in such illegal use of the
vehicle is also an essential prerequisite for confiscation of
the vehicle or imposing any penalty for release of the
vehicle. Such view has been consistently expressed by this
Court in various judicial pronouncements under writ
jurisdiction.
21. It has been held by this Court in Mohammad Basim
Akram v. State of Bihar [2022 (6) BLJ 540] that when the
driver of a vehicle is found to be carrying some quantity
of intoxicant or liquor in the vehicle for his personal
consumption without any knowledge of the owner of the
vehicle, such vehicle cannot be construed of having
indulged in transportation of illicit liquor. The facts of the
case was that 8.8 litre illicit liquor was recovered from the
cabin of the driver and driver had confessed that he had
purchased the contraband for his personal consumption
and kept in the cabin.
22. There is also a possibility of situation where driver of
a motorcycle or car or other vehicles may be carrying
small quantity of contraband in his clothes like in pocket
of shirt or pant. In such situation also, it would be
completely erroneous to hold that vehicle was being used
for carrying the contraband. Hon'ble High Court of
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
6/9
Kerala in Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala [2022 LiveLaw
(Ker) 627] has expressed similar view. In that case, a
person was driving a vehicle and 0.06 grams of LSD
Stamp was recovered from wallet kept in his pocket.
Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that it could not be said
that the vehicle was used for conveyance of the
contraband and the vehicle is subject to confiscation. In
Thausif Ahammad Bengre v. State of Kerala [2018 SCC
OnLine Ker 3905] the vehicle was being driven by the
driver and 40 grams Ganja was recovered from his
possession. In that situation, Hon'ble Kerala High Court
held that it is really fallacious to contend that the vehicle
was used for carrying the contraband.
23. It is relevant to point out that in case of direct
involvement of the owner of the vehicle in prohibited use
of the vehicle, he is made accused in the criminal case
registered by the police. Even in case of his indirect
involvement by way of permission for or connivance in
use of his vehicle in commission of the offence, he is liable
to be accused under Section 47 of the Act. As such, unless
the owner of the vehicle is an accused in the case, the
court can not hold that the owner of the vehicle is directly
or indirectly involved in the prohibited use of the vehicle.
24. It is also pertinent to note that in the light of various
pronouncements of this Court, Bihar Government has
issued letter dated 07.02.2020 bearing Letter No. 13/HC-
06-55/2020
-670. The letter has been written by Additional
Chief Secretary, Home Department cum Prohibition,
Excise and Registration Department to all District
Collectors, Police Officers and Excise Officers. By this
letter, the Government has clearly stated in para-2 of the
letter that as per direction of this Court, such vehicle,
from which no liquor has been recovered, will not be
confiscated. In para-3 of the letter, the Government has
stated that when the vehicle was being driven by the
driver in drunken condition but no liquor has been
recovered from the vehicle, only the driver would be
prosecuted under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016.
25. Coming to the case at hand we find that on
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
17.09.2020, the accused Satyendra Kumar and Sunil
Yadav were allegedly riding the motorcycle in question
and on search 13.9 liter illicit liquor was seized/recovered
from the bag kept by the pillion rider, Sunil Yadav in his
hand. There is no allegation, as emerging from the FIR,
that the contraband was kept/concealed in any part of the
motorcycle in question to carry it. In such situation, it
would be erroneous to hold that the motorcycle was used
to carry the contraband. The word "use" cannot be
interpreted liberally giving expansive meaning. It has to
be interpreted strictly as it has penal consequences. Even
the object and scheme of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
Act does not warrant expansive interpretation. At most,
the persons who were found in illegal possession of the
contraband may be prosecuted for offence as committed
under the Act.
26. We also find that against the petitioner/owner of the
vehicle there is no allegation of her direct or indirect
involvement in commission of the alleged offence. That is
why she has not been made accused in the criminal case
registered by the police.
27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, we find that the twin prerequisites for seizure and
confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 - use of the vehicle in
carrying/transporting the liquor or intoxicant and the
consent or connivance of the owner of the vehicle in
commission of the offence - are not fulfilled. Consequently
the vehicle in question is not liable to be seized and
confiscated under the Act.
28. Hence, the impugned order is arbitrary and hit by
Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also violative of
Constitutional right of the petitioner to hold property as
provided in Article 300 A of the Constitution, which
prohibits any deprivation of property without authority of
law. The Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act no way
authorises the official to seize or confiscate the
motorcycle in the alleged facts and circumstances of the
case. Hence, the seizure and confiscation of the
motorcycle in question is without any authority of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
The confiscation order, is accordingly liable to be
quashed. The petitioner, whose constitutional right to
property has been violated, is entitled to adequate
compensation. He is also entitled to compensation on
account of expenditure and harassment in course of
forced litigations.
29. Hence, the impugned order dated 19.11.2021 passed
by the District Collector, Gopalganj in Confiscation
(Excise) Case No. 700/2020 is quashed. The District
Collector, Gopalganj is also directed to release the
motorcycle in question forthwith. He is further directed to
pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to the Petitioner
towards compensation. The payment of the compensation
must be made within ten days of the receipt of the order.
30. The petition is allowed, accordingly."
7. We find from the law laid down in the case of
Sunaina (supra), that involvement or connivance of the owner
of the vehicle in illegal use of the vehicle for ferrying illicit
liquor is an essential prerequisite for confiscation of the vehicle
or imposing any penalty for release of the vehicle. As far as the
present case is concerned, admittedly the counter affidavit filed
by the respondent-State does not show that either the petitioner
is an accused in FIR bearing Kundwa Chainpur P.S. Case No.
199 of 2025 or he is in anyway involved in commission of the
alleged offence and moreover, there is no whisper about the FIR
filed by the petitioner regarding his motorcycle having been
stolen being not authentic or unlawful. Therefore, we are of the
considered opinion that if the vehicle in question was stolen on
13.06.2025, leading to lodging of an FIR for theft of the same
Patna High Court CWJC No.21052 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
bearing Chhatauni P.S. Case No. 357 of 2025 dated 14.06.2025,
which was subsequently seized in connection with Excises Act
case bearing Kundwa Chainpur P.S.Case No. 199/2025, wherein
the petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused, the
motorcycle in question can be released, especially in absence of
any material to show any direct or indirect involvement of the
petitioner/owner of the vehicle in commission of the alleged
offence. The present case stands squarely covered by the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Sunaina (supra).
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and for the foregoing reasons, we direct the concerned
authority to release the motorcycle of the petitioner, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt/communication of
a copy of this order.
9. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Ashish/- (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V. K. Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
