Patna High Court
Saikat SamantaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
Confiscation of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires proof of the owner’s involvement in the illegal activity; absent such proof, the vehicle must be released.
Summary
Petitioner Saikat Samanta, owner of a Hyundai Venue, filed a writ petition seeking release of his vehicle seized by Bihar Excise authorities under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, after 3 litres of illicit foreign liquor were recovered from it. The petitioner argued he was not present in the vehicle and had merely lent it to co‑villagers who purchased the liquor, and that no notice of confiscation had been served. The State contended that the seizure was justified because liquor was found in the vehicle. The Court, relying on Sunaina v. State of Bihar (2024), held that the owner’s involvement or connivance is a prerequisite for confiscation, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court ordered the vehicle’s release within a week upon payment of a Rs 5,000 penalty and verification of ownership, and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether seizure of a vehicle under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is valid when the owner’s involvement in the illicit liquor offence is not established.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of the seized vehicle pending payment of a penalty.
- Whether the imposition of a Rs 5,000 penalty is appropriate under the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- illicit liquor
- confiscation
- Section 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Article 226
- writ petition
- release of seized property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20633 of 2025
======================================================
Saikat Samanta Son of Tarapada Samanta, Resident of Village-
Champadanga, P.S.- Tarkeshwar, District- Hubali (West Bengal).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Development of
Registration and Excise, Government of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad.
5. The S.H.O., Excise Police Station, District- Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ambrish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Saharsh Kumar, Adv.
Mr.Priyesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader 04
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
3 16-02-2026 The present writ petition has been filed for release of
Hyundai Venue Car bearing Registration No. WB-16BJ-0523,
Chassis No. MALFD81BLNM360819 and Engine No.
G4LANM233775 in favour of the petitioner, who is the owner
of the vehicle in question.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner has been seized on account of
registration of Jehanabad Excise P.S.Case No. 640/2025, dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.20633 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
2/4
8.10.2025 under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2016”)
against three persons as also against the owner of the vehicle in
question on account of recovery of 3 liters of illicit foreign
liquor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till
date the petitioner has not received any notice regarding
initiation of confiscation proceedings and in fact, the
Respondents are also silent about it in the counter affidavit, filed
in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that admittedly, the petitioner was not travelling in the
aforesaid vehicle and he had given the same to his co-villagers,
who had admitted that they had purchased 3 liters of illicit
foreign liquor on the way for the purposes of partying. Thus, it
is submitted that the petitioner is not having any complicity in
the alleged occurrence, hence a lenient view of the matter be
taken.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State
has submitted that though it is true that the petitioner was not
found travelling in the vehicle in question, nonetheless 3 liters
of illicit foreign liquor has been recovered from the vehicle in
question, hence the vehicle has rightly been seized under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20633 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
3/4
provisions of the Act, 2016.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
find from the law laid down 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 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
Jehanabad Excise P.S. Case No. 640 of 2025 or he is in any way
involved in commission of the alleged offence.
6. We further find that seizure of the vehicle, which had
taken place on 8.10.2025 and is still underseize up to this date is
quite harsh, considering the meager quantity of illicit liquor i.e.
3 liters recovered from the aforesaid vehicle in question. Hence,
we deem it fit and proper to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case for issuing
direction for release of the vehicle in question.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20633 of 2025(3) dt.16-02-2026
4/4
we deem it fit and proper to direct the Respondent authorities to
release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner within
a period of one week of deposit of penalty to the tune of Rs.
5,000/- and upon verification of the ownership of the petitioner
qua the vehicle in question.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition
stands disposed off.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ajay/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.