Sonu Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 1229 Patna

Patna High Court

Sonu Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2026

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5044 of 2026
     ======================================================
     Sonu Kumar Rai S/o Bhageshwar Ray, Resident of Vill.-Gangoi, P.O.-
     Shyamkauria, P.S.-Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.

                                                              ... ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
     Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2.   The District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra.
3.   The Senior Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
4.   The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
5.   Deputy Superintendent of Police, Marhaurah II, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.
6.   The S.H.O. Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.
7.   The Investigating Officer, Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Advocate
                                   Mr. Noumaan Ahmad, Advocate
                                   Mr. Sharfraz Ahmad, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s   :      Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy-1, SC 13
                                   Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC 13
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
             and
             HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
     ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 12.05.2026, the

S.H.O. of the Ishuapur Police Station in the District of Saran at

Chapra is present online. This Court has made queries from the Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

S.H.O. with regard to the seizure and release of the vehicle in

question.

3. This writ application has been preferred seeking

release of the vehicle in question being Registration No. BR-

04AU/9072, Chassis No. MD625AF99R2K34346, Engine No.

AF9KR2333518 belonging to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle in

question was seized by one Heera Kumar Paswan the S.I. of the

Police Ishuapur Police Station on 17.12.2025 at about 21:35 hours.

It is stated that near the Kirana shop in which the police party had

conducted the raid, 4 motorcycles were standing, which were

seized by police. One of the motorcycles was this TVS rider. Three

persons were apprehended by police and three motorcycles, from

which altogether 5 litres 400 ml of liquors were seized, were also

seized by police. In the motorcycle belonging to this petitioner no

liquor was found, therefore, the motorcycle of the petitioner was

not liable to be seized. It is submitted that Section 56 of the Bihar

Prohibition and Excise Act provides for confiscation of certain

items. Under sub-section 2 of Section 56, confiscation of the

vehicle seized in connection with the transportation of the liquor

is permissible, but a vehicle which is not found transporting liquor,

the police official would not be justified in seizing the said vehicle. Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

Reference in this regard has been made to the judgment of Hon'ble

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina @ Suneina

versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024 (3) BLJ 163.

5. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner

challenged the seizure of the vehicle and prayed for release by

filing this writ application, in a hurry and hot haste, S.H.O. of the

police station released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner during

the pendency of the writ application. This was done immediately

after this Court called upon the respondents to file counter

affidavit with a clear observation that if the seizure is found to be

illegal, the S.H.O. of the concerned police station may be liable to

pay cost and compensation for the same. It is submitted that even

at this stage, the police officer seems to have acted in haste as even

without any order of the competent court of law or the authority as

envisaged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the

vehicle has been released. This has been done only to save their

skin as the police officials found themselves in a wrong box, they

were aware that seizure of the vehicle will be held illegal, they

could pre-empt that for unlawful seizure of the vehicle they may

have to face the consequences.

6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the

vehicle in question was seized when it was parked near the Kirana Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

shop. The S.I. of the Police Heera Paswan brought the vehicle to

the police station, but there is no denial of the fact that from the

vehicle in question no alcohol/liquor was seized.

7. Learned counsel submits that when the present

S.H.O., Mr. Gaurav Kumar, joined in the month of April, 2026, he

got the verification of the vehicle done through the District

Transport Office. The vehicle in question not being involved in

transportation of liquor, on obtaining order from the Inspector, the

vehicle has been released in favour of the petitioner. The S.H.O. of

the Ishuapur Police Station, who is present online, has admitted

that since the seizure of the vehicle, till his joining in the month of

April, 2026, neither the verification of the ownership of the vehicle

was done nor any step was taken otherwise to submit a report to

the Court/competent authority showing that the vehicle is not

involved in transportation of the liquor.

Consideration

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

State as also the S.H.O. of the Ishuapur Police Station, we find that

there is an admission on the part of the respondents that vehicle in

question was seized when it was standing parked near the Kirana

shop. The vehicle was not carrying any liquor, therefore, under the Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

provisions of the Act of 2016, it was not liable to be seized much

less confiscated.

9. In the case of Sunaina (surpa) this Court has held as

under:-

"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."

10. This Court, therefore, finds that seizure of the

vehicle in question was wholly illegal and it was done by S.I. of

police without there being any basis. The seizure is illegal, not

having any sanction of law.

11. This Court further finds that after seizure of the

vehicle, it was kept in the police station but without carrying any Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

verification of the ownership of the vehicle and no intimation was

given to the owner of the vehicle to inform that the vehicle may be

taken away from the police station. This Court finds that even

though the seizure list was filed in the Court of learned

Jurisdictional Special Exclusive Excise Judge, no report was

submitted after carrying investigation, if any, with regard to the

involvement of the vehicle. The police officer knew that the

vehicle was not carrying any liquor still seizure was made and

when this Court called upon the respondent S.H.O. to file a

counter affidavit, then in a hurry the vehicle was released in favour

of the petitioner.

12. Section 95 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,

2016, empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out

the purposes of the Act. Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021

has been made by the Government of Bihar in exercise of its

power under Section 95 of the Act. Rule 12A, as inserted in 2022

by way of amendment, provides for release of vehicle, conveyance

etc. on payment of penalty. This Rule is applicable to all pending

confiscation/auction proceedings by virtue of its Explanation. This

Rule reads as follows:--

"12A. Release of Vehicles, Conveyance etc. on Payment of Penalty.-- (1) If any vehicles, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has been seized by any police or excise officer Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

under the Act, then in terms of Section 57B (1) of the Act, the Collector or an officer authorized by him upon receipt of an application in Form IV by the owner of the said conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said conveyance or vehicle upon payment of such penalty as may be ordered by the Collector or the officer authorized by him.

Provided, where it is not possible to ascertain the owner of the vehicle or the owner is not coming to claim the vehicle, the Collector or the officer authorized by him, after waiting for 15 days from the date of seizure, shall proceed to confiscate and auction the vehicle as per the provisions of the Act.

(2) The amount of penalty shall be as decided by the Collector or the Officer authorized by him. While imposing the penalty, he shall have due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of the vehicle. In no case, the penalty should be less than 10% of the insured value of the vehicle and more than Rs. 5 lakhs. The insured value is the value of the vehicle as assessed by the insurance company. Where, the insured value is not available or the Collector or the Officer authorized by him has reason to believe that the vehicle is undervalued, he shall get the valuation done by the District Transport Officer. In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond 15 days from the date of seizure and if during this period, the accused/owner does not pay up the penalty, he shall proceed with the confiscation/auction."

Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

(3) Notwithstanding above, if on a report by police officer or excise officer, the Collector or the officer authorized by him is satisfied that releasing the vehicle or conveyance shall not be in the public interest, he shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said vehicle or conveyance and its subsequent auction/disposal.

(4) Where the conveyance is such that its valuation/insurance is not possible, the Collector or the officer authorized by him shall impose such fine as he deems fit. While imposing such fine, the Collector or the officer authorized by him shall have due regard to the economic status of the individual, nature of his involvement in the crime and the quantum of intoxicant recovered.

(5) Such penalty shall be, regardless of the outcome of the trial if any, before the Special Court, non-refundable.

(6) The owner of the vehicle/conveyance shall, after the release of the vehicle/conveyance, produce the vehicle/conveyance as and when required by the authorities.

Explanation. In all pending/ongoing cases of confiscation/auction of vehicles, the Collector or the officer authorized by him may give an opportunity to the existing owner to pay the aforesaid penalty and get the vehicle released. Upon satisfaction about ownership and upon payment of such penalty, the ongoing confiscation/auction proceeding may be dropped and the vehicle released."

Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

(Emphasis supplied)

13. It is evident that Rule 12A would not be applicable

in the facts of this case.

14. Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 provides that when

any vehicle, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has been seized by

any police or excise officer under the Act in terms of Section 57B

(1) of the Act, the Collector or an officer authorized by him upon

receipt of an application in Form-IV by the owner of the said

conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said conveyance or

vehicle upon payment of such penalty as may be ordered by the

Collector or the officer authorized by him. Proviso to Rule 12A

states that when it is not possible to ascertain the owner of the

vehicle or the owner is not coming to claim the vehicle, the

Collector or the officer authorized by him, after waiting for 15

days from the date of seizure, shall proceed to confiscate and

auction the vehicle as per the provisions of the Act.

15. A bare reading of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021

would show that it is based on a pre-supposition that the vehicle in

question has been seized in accordance with law as contained

under Section 57B of the Act of 2016. We reproduce Section 57B

hereinunder for a ready reference:

"57B. Things or premises liable to be released upon penalty. - (1) Any animal, vehicle, Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

vessel or other conveyance used for committing any offence punishable under this Act that has been seized by any police Officer or Excise Officer may be released by the Collector upon payment of such penalty as may be notified by the State Government.

(2) Any premises or part thereof used for committing any offence punishable under this Act that has been seized by any police Officer or Excise Officer may be released by the Collector upon payment of such penalty as may be notified by the State Government.

(3) If the person concerned does not pay the penalty, then the Collector shall proceed to confiscate the said animal, vehicle, vessel or other conveyance and premises as per section-58."

16. On a conjoint reading of Section 57B of the Act of

2016 and Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021, it would be crystal clear

that the legislatures have framed the laws with an understanding

that no police officer or excise officer shall seize a vehicle if the

vehicle is not being used for committing any offence punishable

under the Act of 2016. The legislature could not have thought that

a police officer while discharging his duties may indulge in misuse

of his position and power by taking into possession a vehicle

which is not engaged in transportation of liquor. It is only because

of this reason, perhaps, no provision has been introduced in the

special Statute and the Rules framed thereunder to deal with the

present situation.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

17. At this stage, we would take a glance over the

provisions of law relating to release of seized articles in

connection with an offence by a regular Court. Section 457 of the

CrPC (now Section 503 of the BNSS) provides the procedures by

police upon seizure of property. Section 503 BNSS is being

extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-

"503. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Sanhita, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation."

18. The Act of 2016 has been enacted to enforce,

implement and promote complete prohibition of liquor and Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

intoxicants in the territory of the State of Bihar. The Act attempts

to provide a uniform law relating to prohibition and regulation of

liquor and intoxicants, levy of duty thereunder and punishment

for violation of law in the State of Bihar. Section 60 of the Act of

2016 reads as under:-

"60. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation.- Whenever any liquor, material, still, utensil, implements or apparatus or any receptacle, package, any animal cart, vessel, or other conveyance used in committing any offence, is seized or detained under this Act, no court shall have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property."

19. By virtue of Section 60 of the Act of 2016, in the

matters relating to release of a vehicle found involved in

commission of an offence under the Act of 2016, application

seeking release of vehilce cannot be filed in the regular courts

under the CrPC/BNSS.

20. We have noticed Section 95 of the Act of 2016 and

Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021, (as amended up-to-date). It is

evident on reading of Section 60 of the Act of 2016 together with

Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 that where a vehicle is found

involved in transportation of liquor and is seized in connection

therewith, it would be liable to be confiscated. In such matters, Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

release of vehicle may be allowed only by the competent

authority under Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 on payment of

penalty as envisaged under the Rules.

What will be the situation when a police officer seizes a

vehicle even as the vehicle is not involved in transportation of

liquor but the FIR is registered under the provisions of the Act of

2016?

21. Whether the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special

Excise Court stands ousted in such matters also where the vehicle

has, though been seized in connection with a case registered

under the Act of 2016 but the police officer finds that the vehicle

is not liable to be seized and cannot be recommended for

confiscation? To this Court, it appears that where the police

officer who seized the vehicle realizes that the vehicle is not

liable be seized or detained in connection with the case registered

under the Act of 2016, he must act bonafidely and bring it to the

notice of the learned Jurisdictional Court i.e. court of Exclusive

Special Judge, Excise with a prayer to allow him to release the

vehicle in favour of the owner. In such cases where during or

after completion of investigation of a case, it is found that the

vehicle or any other article seized is not liable to be seized, not

recommended for confiscation or is not required to be detained in Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

connection with the case, the learned Exclusive Special Judge,

Excise shall be competent to order release of the vehicle or the

article as the case may be.

The present case is a perfect example of the circumstance

where the vehicle has been seized even as admittedly no liquor

was found under transportation in the vehicle. Police has not

recommended for confiscation, still the vehicle remained under

seizure in the police station. Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 takes

care of only such releases where the vehicle is found involved in

commission of an offence under the Act of 2016, on payment of

penalty in terms of the scheme of the Rules of 2021. This Court,

therefore, finds that a person aggrieved by seizure of the present

nature cannot be left remediless and the Court has to take an

appropriate view of the matter without doing any violation with

the provisions of the special legislation and the Rules framed

thereunder.

22. We are of the opinion that Section 60 of the Act of

2016 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special

Excise Court in granting release of the vehicle or other articles

which are not found involved in commission of an offence under

the Act of 2016. The special court is competent to pass an order

for release of vehicle or other articles in such cases either on the Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

basis of an application of the police officer informing the court

that the vehicle or the other article is not liable to be seized or on

an application filed by the aggrieved person bringing it to the

notice of the court that his vehicle or the article has been seized

even as those are not involved in commission of an offence under

the Act of 2016, hence not recommended for confiscation. On

such application, the court may call for a report from the police

and consider the application. This remedy may be applied for in

appropriate cases.

23. In the present case, the S.H.O. of the Isuapur Police

Station released the vehicle during pendency of the writ

application immediately after this Court called for a response

vide order dated 12.05.2026. This Court called upon the S.H.O.

to show as to under which provision of law he could exercise his

power to release the vehicle. He could not show any power

conferred upon him by the statute.

24. This being the position, while allowing the writ

application, for unlawful seizure of the vehicle for four months

approx, we direct the State of Bihar (Respondent no.1) to pay cost

and compensation collectively assessed at Rs. 50,000/- to the

petitioner within a period of one month from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order. Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

25. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs.

M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed in paragraph-11 as under:

"11..... Public administration, no doubt involves a vast amount of administrative discretion which shields the action of administrative authority. But where it is found that the exercise of discretion was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental and physical harassment then the officer can no more claim to be under protective cover...."

26. Dealing with the afore-mentioned principle of

accountability, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of

Delhi Airtech Service Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354 in

paragraph nos. '215' and '218' as under:

"215.... The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action are applicable to cases of executive or statutory exercise of power, besides requiring that such actions also not lack bona fides. All these principles enunciated by the Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that public officers are answerable for both their inaction and irresponsible actions. If what ought to have been done is not done, responsibility should be fixed on the erring officers; then alone, the real public purpose of the answerable administration would be satisfied."

218. Principles of public accountability are applicable to such officers/officials with all their rigour. Greater the power to decide, higher is the Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

responsibility to be just and fair. The dimensions of administrative law permit judicial intervention in decisions, though of administrative nature, which are ex facie discriminatory. The adverse impact of lack of probity in discharge of public duties can result in varied defects, not only in the decision making process but in the final decision as well. Every officer in the hierarchy of the State, by virtue of his being "public officer" or "public servant" is accountable for his decisions to the public as well as to the State. This concept of dual responsibility should be applied with its rigours in the large public interest and for proper governance."

27. Following the aforesaid principles, the Patna High

Court has held in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar

Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019

(1) PLJR 1051, that whenever State is saddled with cost and

compensation for the misuse of power by the executives of the

State, such cost and compensation should be realized from the

erring officials. The public exchequer cannot be burdened by

directing payment of money without realizing the same from the

officers whose misuse of power has resulted in imposition of cost

and compensation against the State. The order of this Court in case

of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak (supra) was

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.

003566/2019, however, no interference was made with the order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026

28. We, therefore, direct that the cost and compensation

of Rs.50,000/- shall be realized from the erring officials in

accordance with the law.

29. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/prachi/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          16.05.2026
Transmission Date       16.05.2026