Patna High Court
Aman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The petitioner, as the owner of a stolen vehicle, is not liable to pay the 50% valuation penalty and the vehicle must be released without payment.
Summary
Aman Kumar, the registered owner of a motorcycle, filed a writ petition seeking the release of his vehicle, which had been seized in an excise case after being stolen and used to transport liquor. He contested the penalty of 50% of the vehicle's valuation imposed by the District Magistrate under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The court noted that the petitioner had reported the theft, that no material linked him to the liquor offence, and relied on the precedent of Rubi Devi where an owner of a stolen vehicle was not held liable for such penalties. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner could not be required to pay the penalty and ordered the confiscating authority to release the motorcycle immediately without any payment. The writ petition was allowed, directing the release of the vehicle and quashing the penalty.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of a stolen vehicle used for illegal liquor transport is liable to pay the penalty under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2018.
- Whether the District Magistrate’s order demanding 50% of the vehicle’s valuation as a condition for release is valid in the circumstances of theft.
- Whether the confiscating authority must release the vehicle without payment of the penalty.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- confiscation proceeding
- penalty
- stolen vehicle
- writ petition
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- release of property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2134 of 2026
======================================================
Aman Kumar Son of Gajendra Singh, Resident of Village Saidpur, P.O.-
Karauta, P.S.-Salimpur, District-Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise and Prohibition
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Saran, Chhapra.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Utpad (Excise) Sadar P.S, Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Md. Waliur Rahaman, Advocate
Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
4 15-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in the present writ application is
seeking following reliefs:-
“(i). For release of the vehicle in
favour of the petitioner in which the
petitioner is the owner of said seized
motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR 01
HB-5925, the above motorcycle name as
Hero Splendour + modal is has been seized
in connection with sadar utpad P.S Case no.
165 /2025 due to Violation of the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.2134 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
2/4
prohibition and Excise Act 2018 by a third
person, after changing the number plate.
(ii) Quash/set aside the penalty of 50% of
valuation amount made by the District
Magistrate, Saran in Consification case no-
510/20251 order dated 15.10.25.
(iii) Direct the respondents not to take any
coercive action against the petitioner in the
confiscation proceeding.
(iv). Award compensation to the petitioner
for illegal detention of the vehicle, mental
harassment and financial loss, quantified at
Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand) or such other amount as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
(v) Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle, bearing
Registration No.BR01HB5925, Engine No.HA11EANHM 17534,
Chassis No.MBLHAW179NHM27541. On 11.12. 2024, the said
motorcycle was stolen away, for which a written complaint was
made in the Salimpur Police Station in the district of Patna. The
F.I.R was lodged on 15.12.2024. It is submitted that subsequently
on 22.07.2025, the said stolen motorcycle was intercepted and 14
liters of liquors were recovered from the possession of a person,
who was using the said motorcycle after changing the number
plate. A case, being Sadar Excise P.S Case No. 165 of 2025
(Annexure-P/3), has been lodged in connection with the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.2134 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
3/4
seizure.
4. It is stated that a confiscation proceeding has been
initiated in respect of the motorcycle in question. In said
confiscation proceeding, the District Magistrate has informed the
petitioner to appear with an application for release in Form-IV in
terms of Rule-12 (A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules,
2021, as amended earlier, and he can get release of the vehicle on
payment of 50% of the present valuation of the vehicle.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of this
Court in the case of Rubi Devi (CWJC No.15595/2025), in which
this Court has taken a view that where the vehicle was being used
for transportation of liquor without knowledge of the owner of the
vehicle or that the vehicle is stolen away, the owner of the vehicle
would not be liable to pay penalty.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent No.4. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that in the
confiscation case, the Confiscating Authority has called for a
report from the S.H.O. of Salimpur P.S., regarding the statement
of claim of the petitioner so that appropriate final order may be
passed. The confiscation proceeding has been kept pending in
absence of the report from the Salimpur Police Station.
7. It appears from the previous order passed by this
Patna High Court CWJC No.2134 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
4/4
Court that on 23.03.2026, while granting last indulgence to
learned counsel for the respondent-State to comply with the
earlier order of this Court, it was made clear that failing the
compliance, this Court may proceed to consider the issue
regarding release of the motorcycle in question.
8. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that
the case was lodged by the petitioner earlier in respect of the theft
of the motorcycle. Neither in the said case any material has come
involving the petitioner so far, nor in the excise case the role of
the petitioner has been found.
9. This being the position, we are of the considered
opinion that the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay 50% of
the valuation of the vehicle. We direct the Confiscating Authority
to release the vehicle in question forthwith without payment of
penalty.
10. This writ application stands allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
harsh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.