Patna High Court
Dayamanti DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The seizure and confiscation of the petitioner’s land were unauthorized and unconstitutional, and the court ordered the land to be de‑sealed and the confiscation proceedings set aside.
Summary
Dayamanti Devi, the petitioner, owned a parcel of land that was sealed and subjected to confiscation proceedings after a raid recovered illicit liquor from a sack hidden in garbage on her premises. The liquor was linked to two accused individuals, Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar, who had no connection to the petitioner. The petitioner argued she was not an accused, had no involvement, and that the seizure violated her constitutional rights. The State contended that the seizure was authorized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and that the petitioner had not applied for release under Rule 12B. The Court examined Sections 30, 56, 57B, and 58 of the Act and the relevant rules, finding no evidence of the petitioner’s involvement, deeming the seizure arbitrary, and holding it violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court set aside the confiscation proceedings and ordered the land to be de‑sealed in favor of the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure and confiscation of the petitioner’s land under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is justified when the owner is not an accused nor involved in the offence.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the sealed premises without payment of penalty under Rule 12B.
- Whether the State’s action violates the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 14 and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the procedural requirements of Rules 12B and 13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022 were complied with.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30, 56, 57B, 58
Subjects
- seizure
- confiscation
- property rights
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- writ petition
- illegal liquor
- land sealing
- penalty
- Rule 12B
- Rule 13B
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16759 of 2025
======================================================
Dayamanti Devi wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Resident of- Indira Gandhi
Chawk, Hospital Road, Nawada, Police Station- Nawada Town, District-
Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise and
Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada, Bihar
3. The Additional District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawada, Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada, Bihar
5. The Circle Officer, Nawada, Bihar
6. The SHO, Excise police station, Nawada, Bihar
7. Shivshankar Prasad @ Shivshankar Prasad S/o Late Harilal Sao, Prasad
Bigha, Police Station- Town, District Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, AC to GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 09-02-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for de-
sealing and release of land of the petitioner situated at Mauza –
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
2/13
Gonawa, Thana No. 367, District- Nawada appertaining to
Khata No. 346, 88, Khesra No. 3192, 3193, admeasuring 6
decimal. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the
confiscating proceedings initiated by the respondents vide Case
No. 35 of 2025 for confiscating the aforesaid land in question.
2. The brief facts of the case are that one Nawada
Excise P.S. Case No. 873 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 was
registered under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2016”)
against Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu on account
of recovery of 1.500 liters of illicit foreign liquor from the
possession of the said accused persons as also recovery of 2.625
liters of illicit liquor from a sack hidden in the garbage lying in
the premises in question.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that neither the petitioner nor her family members
have been made accused in the aforesaid criminal case and
moreover, the petitioner is not having any connection or relation
with the aforesaid two accused persons namely Ranjit Kumar
and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu. It is further submitted that the
sealed land in question belongs to the petitioner, however the
petitioner resides at another place i.e. at Hospital Raod, Nawada
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
3/13
and the sealed land in question is though surrounded by a
boundary wall but several neighbors of the adjacent houses
throw their garbage in the said land. It is next submitted that
admittedly, meager quantity of 2.625 liters of illicit foreign
liquor has been recovered from a sack which had been
concealed in the garbage lying in the land of the petitioner and
for the same two persons have been made accused in Nawada
Excise P.S. Case No. 873 of 2024, who are absolutely strangers
to the petitioner, hence it is submitted that the land in question
be released in favor of the petitioner and the confiscation
proceedings be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondents-State has submitted that a raid was conducted upon
receipt of confidential information, whereupon Ranjit Kumar
and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu were apprehended with 1.500 liters
of illicit foreign liquor in their possession and upon disclosure
made by them, 2.625 liters of illicit liquor was recovered from a
sack hidden in the garbage lying in the land of the petitioner,
hence confiscation proceedings have rightly been initiated and
the premises in question has rightly been sealed. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has not yet filed any application for
release of the premises in question upon payment of penalty
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
4/13
under Rule 12B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise
(Amendment) Rules, 2022, hence as and when the same is filed,
appropriate decision shall definitely be taken. Nonetheless, at
this juncture, upon a query being put to the learned counsel for
the respondents as to whether any proof has been brought on
record in the counter affidavit to show either connivance or
direct/ indirect involvement of the petitioner in the alleged
occurrence, the answer is in the negative.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record from which it is
apparent that the present case arises out of Nawada Excise P.S.
Case No. 873 of 2024 dated 13.12.2024 which has been
registered under Sections 30(a) and 44 of the Act, 2016 against
Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu on account of
recovery of 1.500 liters of illicit foreign liquor from their
possession as also on account of recovery of 2.625 liters of
illicit liquor from a sack hidden in the garbage lying in the
premises of the petitioner. At this juncture, we would like to
advert to the provisions contained in the amended Act, 2016,
Section 30, 56, 57B and 58 being relevant are being reproduced
herein below:-
“30. Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
5/13
export, transport, possession, sale, purchase,
distribution, etc. of any intoxicant or liquor. -
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act
or of any rule, regulation, order made, notification
issued thereunder, or without a valid license, permit
or pass issued under this Act, or in breach of any
condition of any license, permit or pass renewed or
authorization granted thereunder –
(a) Manufactures, possesses, buys, sells, distributes,
collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports,
removes or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor, hemp; or
(b) Constructs or establishes or works in any
manufactory, distillery, brewery or warehouse; or
(c) Manufactures, uses, keeps or has in his possession
any material, utensil, implement or apparatus, or uses
any premises, whatsoever, for the purpose of
manufacturing any intoxicant or liquor; or
(d) Manufactures any material or film either with or
without the State Government logo or logo of any
State or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor or
intoxicant can be packed or any apparatus or
implement or machine, for the purpose of packing any
liquor or intoxicant; or
(e) Removes any liquor or intoxicant from any
distillery, brewery, warehouse, other place of storage
licensed, established, authorized or continued under
this Act; or
(f) Manufactures, possesses, sells, distributes, bottles,
imports, exports, transports or removes, any
preparation made with or without the use of any
intoxicant or liquor, which can serve as an alcohol or
a substitute for alcohol and is used or likely to be
used or consumed for the purposes of getting
intoxicated;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for the term
which may extend to life and with fine which may
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
6/13
extend to ten lakh rupees.
Provided that the punishment:
(a) For the first offence shall not be less than five
years imprisonment and fine of not less than one lakh
rupees, and
(b) For the second and subsequent offences shall not
be less than ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine
of not less than five lakh rupees”.
56. Confiscation of Seized Items.- (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 57B,
whenever an offence punishable under this Act, is
committed, the Collector or an Officer authorized by
him may confiscate such items based on the report of
the investigating officer.
(2) Such items may include-
(i) any premises or part thereof;
(ii) any animal, vehicle, vessel or conveyance;
(iii) any liquor or intoxicant;
(iv) any other item having bearing with the case;
Provided, where things as mentioned in Section 57 are
to be destroyed, then the Collector or an officer
authorized by him need not confiscate the same before
their destruction.
(3) The State Government may issue necessary
direction, guidelines, regulations and instructions
with respect to the mode and manner of search,
seizure, destruction and confiscation.
57B. Things or premises liable to be released upon
penalty.- (1) Any animal, vehicle, 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
7/13
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.
58. Confiscation by District Collector. - (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any
other law for the time being in force, where anything
liable for confiscation under this Act is seized or
detained under the provisions of this Act, the officer
seizing and detaining such property shall, without any
reasonable delay submit a report to the District
Collector who has jurisdiction over the said area;
(2) On receipt of the report under subsection (1), the
District Collector if satisfied that an offence under
this Act has been committed, may, whether or not
prosecution is instituted for the commission of such an
offence and whether or not a case is pending before
any court, order confiscation of such property;
(3) The Collector shall, before passing an order under
subsection (2), give a reasonable opportunity to the
person concerned, of being heard;
(4) While making an order of confiscation under sub-
section (2), the District Collector may also order that
such of the properties which the order of confiscation
relates, which in his opinion cannot be preserved or
are not fit for human consumption, be destroyed.
Whenever any confiscated article has to be destroyed
in conformity with these provisions, it shall be
destroyed in the presence of an Executive Magistrate
or officer ordering the confiscation or forfeiture, as
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
8/13
the case may be, or in the presence of the Excise
Officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector;
(5) While making an order of confiscation under sub-
section (2), if the District Collector is of the opinion
that it is expedient in the public interest to do so, he
may order the said property or any part thereof to be
sold by public auction or dispose of departmentally
and proceeds deposited with the State Government;
(6) The District Collector shall submit a full report of
all particulars of confiscation to the Commissioner of
Excise within one month of such confiscation”.
6. We would also like to refer to Rule 12B and
13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules,
2022.
"12B. Release of Premises on Payment of Penalty-
(1) If any premises or part thereof has been seized or
sealed by any police or excise officer under the Act,
then in terms of section-57B (2) of the Act, the
Collector or an officer authorized by him, upon
receipt of an application in Form V from the owner of
the said premises, may release or unseal the said
premises or part thereof 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 premises or the owner is not coming
forward, the Collector or the officer authorized by
him shall, after waiting for 15 days from the date of
seizure/sealing, proceed to confiscate the premises as
per the provisions of the Act.
(2) 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,
location of the premises and the quantum of intoxicant
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
9/13
recovered while deciding the quantum of fine to be
paid by the individual. However, the fine shall not be
less than Rs. one Lakh in any case.
In any case, the Collector shall not wait beyond 15
days from the date of seizure/sealing and if during this
period, the accused/owner does not pay up the penalty
he shall proceed with the confiscation/auction.
(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
premises shall not be in the public interest, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him shall
proceed ahead with the confiscation of the said
premises or part thereof and its subsequent
auction/disposal.
(4) Such penalty shall be, regardless of the outcome of
the trial if any, before the Special Court, non-
refundable.
(5) The owner of the Premises shall, after the release
of the premises, allow the inspection of the premises
as and when desired by the authorities.
13B. Procedure of confiscation of Premises.- (1)
Where it is decided by the Collector that the premises
is not to be released on penalty or where the owner
does not pay the required penalty, the confiscation
proceeding shall be initiated. The proposal for
confiscation of the premises shall be sent by the
police/excise officer to the Collector (or an officer
authorized by him) within 30 days from the date of
seizure/sealing. The officer concerned shall
immediately start the confiscation proceeding.
In case of delay of beyond 30 days, in submission of
the proposal for confiscation, the police/excise officer
will have to explain the delay.
(2) The officer concerned, on receipt of proposal of
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
10/13
confiscation of any premises or part thereof any
property liable for confiscation from police/excise
officer, shall issue show cause notice to the owner(s)
of the premises or property. Simultaneously, he shall
issue notice to the Chemical Examiner and/or such
revenue officers for their reports.
(3) Such notice issued by the officer shall be served as
per procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for service of summons.
(4) The officer shall provide reasonable opportunity
of hearing to the owner(s) of the premises or property.
The investigating/inquiry officer shall also be given
opportunity to participate in such hearing.
(5) If the person to whom notice has validly been
served fails to appear in the proceeding on two
consecutive dates fixed for hearing, the confiscating
authority shall proceed to pass the order ex-parte.
(6) The officer shall, after hearing the parties, pass
appropriate order of confiscation or unsealing, as the
case may be, with respect to sealed/seized premises or
property on the basis of his satisfaction whether an
offence has been committed or not in terms of the Act.
(7) The officer shall ensure that the order for
confiscation is passed within 90 days from the date of
seizure/sealing of the premises.
(8) Any person aggrieved by the order passed by the
Collector under the provisions of the Act may file
appeal in the manner prescribed under these rules."
7. A bare perusal of the aforesaid statutory
provisions would show that a premises or part thereof used for
committing an offence under the Act, 2016 can be
seized/confiscated but the same can be released upon payment
of penalty, however while deciding the quantum of fine to be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
11/13
paid by the individual, due regard has to be given to the
economic status of the individual, nature of his involvement in
the crime, location of the premises and the quantum of
intoxicant recovered. Moreover, before passing an order of
confiscation or unsealing, as the case may be, with respect to
sealed/seized premises or property, the concerned officer has to
be satisfied as to whether an offence has been committed or not
in terms of the Act, 2016. Thus, it is apparent from the statutory
provisions contained in the Act, 2016 and the Rules framed
thereunder that direct involvement or connivance of the owner
of the premises in question in illegal use of such premises for
stacking illicit liquor is an essential prerequisite for seizure and
confiscation of the premises in question or imposing any penalty
for release of the same.
8. Now coming back to the present case, we find
that neither the petitioner has been made an accused in the
aforesaid criminal case nor any recovery of illicit foreign liquor
has been made from her possession nor the respondents have
produced any material in the counter affidavit to show either the
involvement or connivance of the petitioner in the alleged
occurrence. Moreover, there is no proof on record to show that
either the petitioner was having any connection with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
12/13
accused, namely Ranjit Kumar and Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu or
she was instrumental in the alleged occurrence or she was
having direct/indirect involvement or connivance in illegal use
of the aforesaid premises for stacking illicit liquor. Therefore,
we find that the action of the State authorities in sealing the
premises in question and initiating confiscation proceedings is
arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is
also violative of the constitutional right of the petitioner to hold
property as provided for under Article 300 A of the Constitution
of India which prohibits any deprivation of the property save by
authority of law. Thus, we are of the considered view that the
Act, 2016 in no way authorizes the officials to seize the
premises in question in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, hence the seizure and the proceedings initiated for
confiscation of the premises in question is without any authority
of law. Accordingly, we set aside the confiscation proceedings
initiated against the petitioner vide Confiscation Case No. 35 of
2025, pending before the learned Additional Collector cum
Additional District Magistrate, Nawada and direct for de-sealing
and release of the premises in question in favor of the petitioner
upon the State authorities being satisfied about the ownership of
the petitioner with regard to the premises in question, within a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16759 of 2025 dt.09-02-2026
13/13
period of two weeks of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
9. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/alok-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.02.2026.
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…