Patna High Court
Md. Hasmuddeen AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A vehicle cannot be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 unless it was used in the commission of the offence and the owner gave consent or was complicit.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Hasmuddeen Ali, filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a confiscation order that directed his stolen motorcycle to be auctioned. He alleged that the bike was stolen in May 2022 and later seized in September 2023 during a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 for carrying illicit liquor, but he was never accused or involved in that offence. The court examined whether the vehicle could be confiscated when the owner had no consent, connivance, or participation in the illegal activity and whether the petitioner was denied personal notice, violating natural‑justice principles. Relying on precedents such as Sunaina v. State of Bihar, the court held that use of the vehicle in the offence and the owner’s involvement are essential prerequisites for confiscation. Consequently, the confiscation order was declared arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution, and was set aside, with the motorcycle ordered to be released and compensation of Rs 1,00,000 awarded to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- The vehicle can be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 when the owner was not involved in the offence and the vehicle was stolen.
- Whether the failure to serve personal notice to the owner violates principles of natural justice.
- Whether the confiscation order infringes constitutional rights under Article 14 and Article 300A.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30, 30(a), 47
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- excise law
- owner liability
- natural justice
- property right
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- motorcycle theft
- illicit liquor
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14374 of 2025
======================================================
Md. Hasmuddeen Ali S/o Md. Shafique Mansuri, R/o Ward No.- 06, Puran
Chapra, Post- Puran Chapra, Anchal- Kalyanpur, Thana- Chakia, Puran
Chhapra, East Champaran, Bihar- 845426.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Excise and Prohibition Department
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj, Bihar.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Gopalganj, Bihar.
5. The Superintendent of Excise, Gopalganj, Bihar.
6. The S.H.O., Kuchaikote Police Station, Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumit Shekhar Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Masoom Raza, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mirza Ahraz Baig, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to Standing Counsel (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 02-02-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the order dated 05.01.2024, passed by the learned Court of Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj in Sub-Divisional
Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 1047 of 2023 whereby and
whereunder the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing registration
No. N/A, Chassis No. MBLHAR071JHL13627 and Engine No.
HAI0AGJHLB2192, has been directed to be confiscated and put
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
2/10
on auction sale.
2. The short facts of the case, according to the
petitioner are that his motorcycle bearing Registration
No.BR05AE-7596 (Hero Splendor +) having the same chassis
and engine number, as aforesaid was stolen in the evening of
09.05.2022 from Puran Chapra Market, leading to him having
lodged an FIR for theft of his motorcycle bearing Chakiya P.S.
Case No.180 of 2022 dated 10.05.2022, registered under Section
379 of the IPC. The petitioner, subsequently came to know that
the said motorcycle has been seized in connection with
Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 470 of 2023 dt. 15.09.2023, registered
under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2016”) against four
accused persons on account of recovery of various quantity of
illicit liquor, however from the motorcycle of the petitioner,
11.160 liters of illicit liquor was seized. The confiscation
authority had then initiated confiscation proceedings, leading to
passing of the impugned order dated 05.01.2024.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
3/10
of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR bearing
Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of 2023, lodged U/s. 30(a) of the
Act, 2016, 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 quashing of the order dated 05.01.2024, however
he has not been able to deny the fact that since the ownership of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
4/10
the motorcycle in question could not be ascertained, the notice
of hearing could not be served upon the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the respondent-State has also not been able to show
any proof of involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence of
recovery of 11.160 liters of illicit liquor from the motorcycle 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 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 on 10.05.2022 bearing
Chakiya P.S. Case No.180 of 2022 under Section 379 of the IPC
in connection with theft of his motorcycle bearing Registration
No.BRO5AE-7596, however the police could not trace out the
same but after more than one year, the said motorcycle was
seized in connection with Khuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of
2023 dated 15.09.2023 registered under Section 30(a) of the
Act, 2016 on account of recovery of 11.160 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
5/10
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. The learned counsel for the respondents has
not refuted the fact that the FIR filed by the petitioner in
connection with the theft of his motorcycle is authentic and
lawful. In fact, the respondent-State has admitted that since the
ownership of the vehicle in question could not be traced out,
personal notice could not be served upon the actual owner of the
vehicle, hence on the ground of violation of the principles of
natural justice and non-grant of reasonable opportunity alone,
the impugned order dated 05.01.2024 is fit to be set aside.
6. 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
6/10
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
7/10
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
8/10
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 & 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
9/10
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”
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 Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of
2023 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 09.05.2022,
leading to lodging of an FIR for theft of the same bearing
Chakiya P.S. Case No.180 of 2022 dated 10.05.2022, which was
though seized in connection with Excises Act case bearing
Patna High Court CWJC No.14374 of 2025 dt.02-02-2026
10/10
Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of 2023, wherein the petitioner
has not been arrayed as an accused, the confiscating authority
could not have passed the order of confiscation, 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 set aside the impugned
order dt. 05.01.2024, passed by the Ld. Court of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Gopalganj in Sub-Divisional Confiscation (Excise)
Case No.1047 of 2023 and direct for release of 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 petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Kanchan./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…