Patna High Court
Gyaneshwar PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A vehicle cannot be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 unless the owner is shown to be involved in the illegal use of the vehicle.
Summary
The petitioner, Gyaneshwar Prasad, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his TVS Apache motorcycle seized by the Saran Excise authorities in connection with a case involving 1.50 litres of illicit liquor recovered from a co‑accused, Satish Kumar, who was riding the bike. The seizure was made under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the alleged offence and that the liquor was not recovered from the vehicle or from his son, Nikhil Kumar, who was also present. The respondents could not demonstrate any direct or indirect participation by the petitioner in the illegal activity. Relying on the precedent set in Sunaina v. State of Bihar (2024 SCC Online Pat 851), the Court held that the owner’s involvement is a prerequisite for confiscation of a vehicle used in illicit liquor transport. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the motorcycle within a week of verification of ownership and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 can be confiscated when the owner is not shown to be involved in the alleged illicit liquor transport.
- Whether the seizure of the motorcycle under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Act is valid absent evidence of the owner’s participation.
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- confiscation
- illicit liquor
- Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act
- ownership
- writ petition
- due process
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20883 of 2025
======================================================
Gyaneshwar Prasad Son of Lakshman Prasad Roy, Resident of Village-
Mishrawalia Magaidih Tola, Hirani, P.S. Muffasil, District-Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Excise, Prohibition and
Registration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise and Prohibition Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra.
4. The Excise Superintendent, Saran.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chapra.
6. The Station House Officer, Excise Sadar P.S., District-Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC-3
Mr. Neelam Kumari, AC to SC-3
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date : 16-02-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for directing the
respondent-authority to release TVS Apache motorcycle bearing
Registration No.BR-04AV-0760, Chassis No. MD634BE8XR2K
18419, Engine No.AE8KR2318587 in favour of the petitioner,
which was seized in connection with Saran Sadar Excise P.S.
Case No.213 of 2025 due to recovery of 1.50 liters of illicit
liquor.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Saran Excise Sadar P.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20883 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
2/4
Case No.213/2025 was registered under Section 30(a) and 32(3)
of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act, 2016”) against three persons on account
of recovery of 1.50 liters of illicit liquor from one co-accused
person, namely Satish Kumar, who was sitting in the middle of
the motorcycle in question.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle in question and
neither the illicit liquor was recovered from him nor he is
having any direct or indirect involvement with the alleged
occurrence nor the illicit liquor has been recovered from the
motorcycle in question, inasmuch as a bare perusal of the
seizure-list would show that 1.50 liters of illicit liquor has been
recovered from one person, namely Satish Kumar, who was
sitting in the middle of the motorcycle in question, accompanied
by two other accused persons, including the son of the
petitioner, namely Nikhil Kumar, who is also not having any
complicity in the alleged occurrence.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that on account of recovery of 1.50 liters of illicit
liquor from the possession of one Satish Kumar, who was also
sitting on the motorcycle in question along with two other co-
Patna High Court CWJC No.20883 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3/4
accused persons, the motorcycle has been seized. However, the
learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show
from the counter-affidavit filed in the present case that the
petitioner is either directly or indirectly involved in the alleged
occurrence much less, is having any connection with the alleged
occurrence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we
find from the law laid down in the case of Sunaina vs. State of
Bihar & Ors., 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 the FIR bearing Saran Excise Sadar P.S. Case
No.213/2025 or he is in anyway involved in commission of the
alleged offence. We further find that meager quantity of illicit
liquor, i.e 1.50 liters is said to have been recovered from one
Satish Kumar, who is a co-accused in the aforesaid case,
however no illicit liquor was recovered from Nikhil who is the
son of the petitioner apart from the admitted fact that illicit
Patna High Court CWJC No.20883 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
4/4
liquor has not been recovered from the motorcycle in question.
Therefore, we are of the considered view 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, neither penalty can be levied for
release of the vehicle nor the same can be subjected to a
confiscation proceeding.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
present case & in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and
proper to direct the respondent-authority to release the
motorcycle in question in favour of the petitioner forthwith
preferably within a period of one week from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order upon due verification
of the ownership of the petitioner qua the motorcycle in
question.
7. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…