Patna High Court
Rajeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A vehicle cannot be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 unless it is used in the offence and the owner consents or connives, which was not established in this case.
Summary
Rajeev Kumar filed a writ petition seeking to quash the confiscation order dated 07.02.2025 that seized his motorcycle, which had been reported stolen on 05.12.2023. The police later recovered the vehicle during an excise raid where 150 litres of illicit liquor were found in sacks, and the driver, not the owner, was in possession of the liquor. The petitioner argued that the vehicle was stolen, he had no involvement or consent in the liquor transport, and therefore the confiscation under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 was unlawful. The Court, relying on the precedent set in Sunaina v. State of Bihar and other judgments, held that confiscation requires both the vehicle's use in the offence and the owner’s consent or connivance, which were absent here. Consequently, the order was declared arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution, and was set aside, directing the release of the motorcycle and awarding compensation to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle can be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 when the owner is not involved in the transport of illicit liquor.
- Whether the confiscation order violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 300A.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for wrongful confiscation.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- illicit liquor
- owner consent
- constitutional property right
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19471 of 2025
======================================================
Rajeev Kumar (Male), Son of Vijay Pandey, Resident of Village Manjhauli,
P.S. Wazirganj, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar the Principal Secretary Department of Excise,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya.
3. The Assistant Commissioner Prohibition, Gaya.
4. The Superintendent of Police, District- Gaya.
5. The S.H.O., Wazirganj P.S., District- Gaya.
6. The S.H.O., Sindhugarh P.S., District- Gaya.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indu Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
For the State Respondent : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP 12
Mr. Pranoy Kumar, AC to GP 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 07-04-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Excise Confiscation Case
No.656 of 2024 by the learned Assistant Commissioner,
Prohibition, Gaya whereby and whereunder the Splendor
motorcycle of the petitioner bearing registration No. BR26S-7652,
Chassis No. MBLHAW110LHG10130, Engine No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
2/10
HA11EVLHG10049 has been directed to be confiscated in
connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are
that his motorcycle bearing registration No. BR26S-7652 was
snatched on 05.12.2023 by two unknown miscreants leading to the
petitioner having filed an FIR bearing Wazirganj P.S. Case No.
723 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 under Section 394 of the Indian
Penal Code. It appears that subsequently the police force, while on
patrolling duty as also while they were checking vehicles, had
apprehended four motorcycles carrying 150 liters of illicit liquor
each in sacks and during the course thereof one of the motorcycles
bearing same chassis number and engine number as that of the
motorcycle of the petitioner was also seized. This led to lodging of
an FIR bearing Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 dated
30.03.2024, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act, 2018’), whereafter confiscation
proceedings were initiated vide Excise Confiscation Case No.656
of 2024 and ultimately the learned Court of Assistant
Commissioner, Prohibition, Gaya passed an order dated
07.02.2025 confiscating the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
3/10
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
since the motorcycle of the petitioner had been stolen much earlier
than the day the same was seized by the police in connection with
excise case as also the name of the petitioner does not find place
in the FIR bearing Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 lodged
U/s. 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act,
2018, 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.
4. It is further 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 the illicit liquor has also not
been proved. Thus, it is submitted by relying on a judgment 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 dated 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
transporting of illicit liquor and any such illegal use of the vehicle,
the vehicle cannot be subjected to a confiscation proceeding.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
4/10
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of
the order dated 07.02.2025, however he has not been able to deny
the fact that the motorcycle in question was stolen/snatched much
before it was seized in connection with the Excise Act case. 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 150 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.
6. 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 bearing Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 723 of
2023 dated 06.12.2023 under Section 394 of the Indian Penal
Code in connection with theft of his motorcycle bearing
registration No. BR26S-7652, however the police could not trace
out the same but after about four months, the said motorcycle was
seized in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024
dated 30.03.2024 under Section 30(a) of the Act, 2018 on account
of recovery of 150 liters of illicit liquor and the person arrested
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
5/10
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 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.
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
6/10
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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
7/10
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 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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
8/10
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.
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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
9/10
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 Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 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 05.12.2023, leading to
lodging of an FIR for theft of the same bearing Wazirganj P.S.
Case No. 723 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023, which was subsequently
seized in connection with Excises Act case bearing Sindhugarh
P.S. Case No.14 of 2024, 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).
Patna High Court CWJC No.19471 of 2025 dt.07-04-2026
10/10
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned order
dated 07.02.2025, passed in Confiscation Case No.656 of 2024 by
the learned Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition, Gaya 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.
10. Accordingly, present writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…