Patna High Court

NEELAM DEVIversusThe State of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Government of

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

The sealing of the petitioner’s house after a two‑year delay was beyond the mandate of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and therefore illegal; the house must be unsealed.

Summary

Neelam Devi filed a writ petition seeking the unsealing of her house, which had been sealed on 31‑01‑2022 after a 2019 raid that recovered illicit liquor. The petitioner argued that she was never made an accused, the investigation had been closed, and the sealing after more than two years was unauthorized, illegal, and caused undue hardship. The State contended that sealing was permissible under Section 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018, and that any procedural delay was due to the COVID‑19 pandemic. The Court held that the statute mandates immediate sealing at the time of recovery and that the police, having become functus officio after the case was closed, lacked authority to seal the premises later; the pandemic excuse was rejected. Consequently, the petition was allowed, the house was ordered to be unsealed immediately, and the State was directed to pay Rs 50,000 as costs.

Issues considered

Whether sealing of premises under Section 62 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act can be effected after a lapse of two years from the time of liquor recovery.
Whether the police had statutory authority to seal the house after the investigation in case No. 797 of 2019 was closed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the prolonged sealing of her house.
Whether the COVID‑19 pandemic provides a valid justification for the delay in sealing.

Subjects

sealing of premises
excise law
illegal seizure
compensation
writ petition
police powers
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
COVID‑19 delay

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.367 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-797 Year-2019 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Neelam Devi Wife of Rajesh Sharma Daughter of Radhe Shyam Singh,
Resident of Village - Usari, P.S.- Rampur Chauram, District - Arwal Presently
Residing at Mohalla - Raja Bazar, Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Jehanabad, District -
Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home
(Police) Government of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna.
Bihar
3. The Collector, Jehanabad. Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. Bihar
5. The Officer in-charge, Jehanabad Police Station District - Jehanabad. Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anunay Shahi, Advocate
Mr.Shivendra Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Priya Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Vivek Prasad, GP-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 13-01-2026

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of

respondent nos. 1 to 5 which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf

of the petitioner for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/

orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities to
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
2/8

unseal/unlock the house of the petitioner which has been locked/

sealed without making aware the petitioner any reason for

locking the same on 31.01.2022.

4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019, dated 06.10.2019 was

instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of Bihar

Prohibition and Excise Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 with

allegation that son of the petitioner has kept India made foreign

liquor in his house and selling the same. A raid was conducted

and son of the petitioner was apprehended. The house of the

petitioner was searched and recovery of total 8.25 litres of

Indian made foreign liquor was made from the house of the

petitioner. It further transpires the part of the house of the

petitioner was sealed on 31.01.2022 and the petitioner was told

verbally that as the recovery of illicit was made from the house

of the petitioner earlier, her house was being sealed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the land on which house was constructed subsequently was

purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed and the

land has also mutated in the name of the petitioner. The

petitioner was not made accused in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797

of 2019. No presumption was ever raised about the involvement
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
3/8

of the petitioner and the house of the petitioner was not sealed

when allegedly the recovery of illicit liquor was made from it.

But all of a sudden, the police came and sealed the house of the

petitioner after more than two years of the occurrence. Learned

counsel further submits that prior to sealing, the investigation

was closed in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of

2019. Therefore, the subsequent sealing of the house of the

petitioner is without authority of law as the police has not

reopened the investigation. Hence, the action of the police is

illegal, malicious, arbitrary and malafide. Learned counsel

further submits that the part of the house has remained sealed

for more than four years, therefore, the authorities are liable to

pay compensation to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel prays

for unsealing of the house of the petitioner and award of

compensation.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-

respondents submits that there is no illegality in the action of the

police officials. Section 56 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

(in short 'the Act') provides for confiscation of any premises or

part thereof that may have been used for storing or

manufacturing any liquor or intoxicant or for committing any

other offence under this Act. Further, under Section 62 of the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
4/8

Act, premises liable to the sealed has been described. As

recovery of illicit liquor has been made from the premises of the

petitioner, the same was liable to be sealed under Section 62 of

the Act. Learned counsel further submits that the sealing is

percursor of the confiscation proceeding. Learned counsel

further submits though there is delay of more than two years in

sealing the premises, the same has been done as per the statutory

provision though under erroneous understanding of the scope of

Section 62 of the Act. Learned counsel refers to the case of

State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that errors in procedure,

when undertaken bonafide, do not amount to malice, especially

in the enforcement of social welfare legislation. Learned

counsel very fairly submits that in view of the legal position and

observations made by this Court from time to time, the

authorities stand ready to unseal the premises subject to

appropriate safeguards. However, learned counsel vehemently

contends that the allegation about action of police illegal,

malicious, arbitrary and malafide are not correct. Learned

counsel further submits that there is no question of grant of any

compensation since delay has occurred due to subsequent

COVID Pendamic and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
5/8

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 has waived the limitation

period during the period 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. Learned

counsel further submits that only a part of the house of the

petitioner was sealed from where the recovery has been made

and not whole of the house and so the petitioner has not suffered

any loss and State is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties. Section 62 of Bihar Prohibition

and Excise Act provides as under:-

"62. Premises liable to the
sealed.-- If it comes to the notice of any
excise officer or any police officer, not below
the rank of a Sub Inspector, that any liquor
or intoxicant has been found at a particular
premises or a particular premises or a part
thereof is or has been used for committing
any offence under this Act, he may
immediately seal the premises and send a
report to the Collector for the confiscation of
the same.
Provided that if the said
premises are temporary structures which
cannot be effectively sealed, then the excise
officer or the police officer, with the order of
the Collector, may demolish such temporary
structures."
8. Therefore, it is much apparent that the sealing
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
6/8

was required to be done immediately after recovery of illicit

liquor from the house of the petitioner. If the house or part of it

was not sealed immediately when the raid was conducted and

recovery was made, the same cannot be done after two years.

Subsequent enactment under Excise Rules which came into

effect in the year 2022 also provides that sealing should be done

immediately and within 24 hours. Therefore, it is clear position

of law that the sealing should have been done then and there

when the recovery was made and the authorities could not

waited for such a long time But, the authorities waited for more

than two years and thereafter, moved for sealing of the house of

the petitioner which cannot be said to be sanctioned by any

statutory provision. If a statute provides for doing a thing in a

particular manner, the said thing is to be done in the same

manner and not at all. This is clear proposition of law as

enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors., (2011) 14

SCC 770. Therefore, on this sole ground, the act of the

respondent authorities for sealing the premises of the petitioner

cannot be sustained. Subsequent fact also supports the

contention of the petitioner about sealing not being legal as

charge sheet has been submitted and investigation has been
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
7/8

completed in this case. Thereafter, the police authorities became

functus officio. Unless further investigation was ordered in the

case or there is any order by any other court, the authorities

acted without sanction of law. Moreover, no such pleading has

come on record.

9. So far as submission of learned counsel for the

State-respondents that the sealing was done subsequently due to

intervening COVID Pandemic is concerned, this argument is

fallacious because the raid was conducted on 06.10.2019 and

the COVID Pandemic started in year 2020 which has been taken

note by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 3 of 2020. Therefore, not taking any action from

October, 2019 till January, 2022 is without any explanation or

justification. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for

the State is rejected.

10. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion,

I am of the considered opinion that the action of the State

authorities is beyond the mandate of the law.

11. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, the authorities are directed to immediately unseal

the house of the petitioner which has been sealed on 31.01.2022

subject to the satisfaction of learned trial court. For putting the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.367 of 2022 dt.13-01-2026
8/8

petitioner to undue harassment, cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed

upon the State authorities.

12. Accordingly, the present petition stands

allowed.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

DKS/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.01.2026
Transmission Date 13.01.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…