Patna High Court - Orders
Prashant Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 9 February, 2026
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14033 of 2025
======================================================
Prashant Kumar Singh Son of Late Shyamnandan Prasad Singh Resident of
Marwari High School Road, Lalbagh, P.S.-Darbhanga Town, District-
Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and
Registration Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Prohibition, Excise and Registration Department,
Government of Bihar.
3. The Excise Commissioner cum Inspector General of Registration
Department, Government of Bihar.
4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga.
6. The Officer In-Charge, Bahadurpur Police Station, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivam, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. U.S.S. Singh, GP-19
Mr. Uday Bhan Singh, AC to GP-19
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
4 09-02-2026The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Secretary (Prohibition & Excise) Bihar, Patna in Excise Revision Case No. 04 of 2025, whereby and whereunder the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga in Excise Confiscation Case No. 177/Excise/2024 and the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 2/10 12.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner Excise, Bihar, Patna in Excise Appeal Case No. 94 of 2024 have been set-aside and it has been held that penalty to the extent of 20% of the newest insurance value would be appropriate as also the petitioner has been granted liberty to file application in Form-IV, whereafter appropriate action has been directed to be taken to release the vehicle and in case the said penalty amount is not deposited within a period of 15 days, it has been further directed to auction sale the vehicle in question.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the S.S.T. officials who were on Lok Sabha Election-2024 duty, were searching vehicles while being posted at the gate of Lohia Charan Singh Mahavidyalaya, Bahadurpur Police Station, Darbhanga and during the course thereof they had intercepted one bus bearing Registration No. BR07PB-7037, Chassis No. MAT751035 JFH14901 and Engine No. 3LNGDICR10HRY508419 as also during the course of checking they found one Black backpack lying on the career of the bus, however none of the passengers sitting in the said bus had admitted the ownership of the said backpack, whereafter the same was opened and 11.52 liters of illicit liquor was recovered. The driver and khalasi (helper) were arrested leading to lodging of Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 176 of Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 3/10 2024 dt. 05.5.2024 under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2016').
3. The owner of the vehicle in question i.e. the petitioner had appeared before the learned Court of Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga in Excise Confiscation Case No. 177/Excise/2024, whereupon the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Darbhanga by an order dt. 16.08.2024 had assessed the penalty amount to the tune of Rs. Five lacs (Rs. 5,00,000/-) along with additional penalty amount of Rs. 15,000/- to be deposited with the concerned authorities as also had directed that upon deposit of the said amount, appropriate action be taken for releasing the vehicle in question. The petitioner had challenged the order dt. 16.8.2024 before the Commissioner Excise, Bihar, Patna by filing an appeal bearing Excise Appeal Case No. 94 of 2024, however the same was dismissed by an order dated 12.11.2024. The petitioner had then challenged the aforesaid two orders dated 16.08.2024 and 12.11.2024 before the revisional authority by filing a revision petition bearing Excise Revision Case No. 04/2025 & the Secretary (Prohibition & Excise), Bihar, Patna by an order dated 15.05.2025 has reduced the penalty amount to 20% of the latest insured value.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 4/10 since the bus of the petitioner was being used to ferry passengers and at the time when the search and seizure of illicit liquor was made, passengers were seated in the bus in question and the bus was being driven by the driver as also was manned by a khalasi (helper), hence it cannot be said that either there was consent of the petitioner or the connivance of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence much less in the use of the bus in question for ferrying illicit liquor, which in any view of the matter has not stood proved. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be made liable for the acts of the passengers who were travelling in the bus and during the course whereof the illicit liquor was recovered from a black backpack stacked on the career of the bus. Thus, it is submitted by relying on a judgment dated 30.01.2024, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2024 SCC online Pat. 851 and the one dated 18.11.2025 passed in the case of Ali Ashraf Siddique vs. The State of Bihar & others (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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 5/10
5. Per contra, the Ld. counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the revisional order dt. 15.5.2025, however he has not been able to show from the counter affidavit that any material has surfaced during the course of investigation regarding involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence of recovery of 11.52 litres of illicit liquor from the bus in question and moreover, in the counter affidavit filed in the present case, there is no material to show any direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner/owner of the bus in commission of the alleged offence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that the bus of the petitioner was seized in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024 dated 05.05.2024 registered U/s. 30(a) of the Act, 2016 on account of recovery of 11.52 liters of illicit liquor from a black backpack stacked on the career of the bus of the petitioner wherein several passengers were seated and the bus was being driven by a driver as also was manned by a khalasi (helper). We further find that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged occurrence and it is apparent from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State that no proof has been brought on record Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 6/10 regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime much less him having any connivance in the alleged offence.
7. At this juncture, we would gainfully refer to the law 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 7/10
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 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 driver & 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 U/s. 47 of the Act. As such, unless the owner of the vehicle is an accused in the case, the court cannot 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 dt. 7.2.2020 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 Govt. has stated Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 8/10 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 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 9/10 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 & confiscation of the motorcycle in question is without any authority of law. 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 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."
8. We find that a coordinate bench of this Court has held 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.
9. 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 Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 176 of 2024 or he is in any way involved in commission of the alleged offence and moreover, there is no whisper about Patna High Court CWJC No.14033 of 2025(4) dt.09-02-2026 10/10 direct or indirect involvement/connivance of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the confiscation authority could not have passed any order levying penalty, 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 in the case of Sunaina (supra), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order dated 15.05.2025, passed by the Secretary (Prohibition & Excise) Bihar, Patna in Excise Revision Case No. 04 of 2025 and direct for release of the bus of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
11. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) S.Sb/-
U