Patna High Court
Arun Kumar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A vehicle cannot be seized or confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 unless it was used for transporting illicit liquor and the owner is directly or indirectly involved; therefore the seizure of the petitioner’s motorcycle was unlawful.
Summary
The petitioner, Arun Kumar Thakur, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his motorcycle which was stolen on 13‑09‑2024 and later seized on 22‑05‑2025 in connection with an excise case for illicit liquor. The seizure was made under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, although the owner was neither an accused nor alleged to have connived in the offence. The Court examined whether the vehicle could be confiscated without proof of its use in transporting liquor and without the owner’s involvement, referring to statutory provisions and earlier judgments. It held that both the use of the vehicle for illicit liquor transport and the owner’s consent or connivance are essential prerequisites for seizure under the Act. Consequently, the confiscation order was declared arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution, quashed, and the motorcycle was ordered to be released with a compensation of Rs 1,00,000 to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- The seizure and confiscation of a motor vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 is valid only if the vehicle was used for transporting illicit liquor and the owner is complicit.
- Whether the petitioner can be compelled to pay a penalty under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 in the absence of any allegation of his involvement.
- Whether the confiscation order violates constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 300A.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
Subjects
- seizure
- confiscation
- excise law
- illicit liquor
- motor vehicle
- property rights
- constitutional law
- Article 14
- Article 300A
- penalty
- Rule 12A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 20978 of 2025
======================================================
Arun Kumar Thakur S/o Rajendra Thakur, Resident of Vill-Newari, P.O.-
Pachbhinda, P.S.-Taraiya, Dist-Saran at Chhapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
4. The S.H.O. Taraiya, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.
5. The District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.
6. The Superintendent of Police, Bettiah, West Champaran.
7. The S.H.O. Nautan, Dist.-Bettiah, West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rananjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, GA8
======================================================
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 release of
motorcycle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR 06 AY
6607, Chassis No.- MBLHA10CGHHA63890, Engine No.-
HA10ERHHA63643.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that
the motorcycle of the petitioner (Splendor Plus) bearing
Registration No.- BR 06 AY 6607 was stolen on 13.09.2024 at
about 02:00 pm leading to registration of Taraiya P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
2/11
369 of 2024 dated 15.9.2024 under Section 303(2) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘BNS’). It appears that subsequently the said motorcycle was
seized in connection with one Nautan P.S. Case No. 231 of 2025
dated 22.05.2025, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act, 2016’) against one Bittu Kumar on account of recovery of
7.92 liters of illicit foreign liquor from the said motorcycle.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare
perusal of the counter affidavit filed in the present case on
behalf of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Saran would
show that the case bearing Taraiya P.S. Case No. 369 of 2024,
filed by the petitioner in connection with theft of his motorcycle
has been found to be true under Section 303(2) of the BNS
during investigation and supervision of the said case by the
Investigating Officer, whereafter the final form has also been
submitted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Madhaura-2,
Saran on 31.01.2026 finding the case to be true against
unknown accused persons, however, without any clue. Thus, it
is submitted that since the motorcycle of the petitioner was
seized in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 231 of 2025
under Section 30(a) of the Act, 2016 on 22.05.2025 which is
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
3/11
much later than the day on which the motorcycle of the
petitioner was stolen, it cannot be said that either the petitioner
was engaged in ferrying of illicit liquor or the petitioner is in
any way directly or indirectly involved in the occurrence in
question and moreover, he has also not been made an accused in
the said excise case FIR. It is further submitted that since the
petitioner has got no role to play in the alleged occurrence, he
cannot be saddled with the liability of either payment of penalty
or confiscation proceedings.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has
though not denied the fact that the motorcycle of the petitioner
was stolen, whereafter the same has been seized in connection
with an excise case FIR and that the police authorities have also
found the case of theft of motorcycle of the petitioner to be true,
however it is submitted that the petitioner can avail the facility
of filing an application under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition
and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘Rules, 2023’) for release of the vehicle upon payment of
penalty.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone
through the materials on record from which we find that
admittedly the petitioner had filed an FIR dated 15.09.2024 in
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
4/11
connection with theft of his motorcycle leading to registration of
Taraiya P.S. Case No.369 of 2024 under Section 303(2) of the
BNS, however the police could not trace out the same but
subsequently, after about nine months, the said motorcycle was
seized in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No.231 of 2025
dated 22.05.2025, registered under Section 30(a) of the Act,
2016 on account of recovery of 7.92 liters of illicit liquor.
6. The records would bear it out that the person who was
apprehended with the illicit liquor while riding the motorcycle
of the petitioner is in no way connected to the petitioner. We
also find from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 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 also not refuted the fact that the FIR filed by
the petitioner in connection with the theft of his motorcycle is
authentic and lawful, rather it has been submitted that the case
filed by the petitioner in connection with theft of his motorcycle
has been found to be true by the police upon investigation.
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 vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
5/11
Online Pat 851, 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
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
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
6/11
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 Live Law (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
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
7/11
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
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
8/11
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.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
9/11
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
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
10/11
(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 Taraiya P.S. Case No.369 of 2024
or he is in any way involved in the alleged occurrence.
Moreover, the FIR filed by the petitioner in connection with the
theft of his motorcycle has also been found to be true by the
police upon investigation, therefore we are of the considered
view that since the motorcycle in question was stolen on
13.9.2024, leading to lodging of an FIR for theft of the same
bearing Taraiya P.S. Case No.369 of 2024 dated 15.09.2024,
however the said motorcycle was subsequently seized in
connection with Excise Case FIR bearing Nautan P.S. Case
No.231 of 2025, wherein the petitioner has neither been arrayed
as an accused nor his involvement or connivance has been
found, the motorcycle in question can neither be confiscated nor
the petitioner is liable to pay penalty for the release of the said
motorcycle, especially in absence of any material to show any
direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner/owner of the
Patna High Court CWJC No. 20978 of 2025 dt.16-02-2026
11/11
motorcycle in question in commission of the alleged offence.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
for the foregoing reasons, we deem it fit and proper to direct for
release of the motorcycle in question in favor of the petitioner
within a period of one week of receipt/production of a copy of
this order before the competent authority/authorized officer
subject to verification of the ownership of the petitioner qua the
motorcycle in question.
10. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…