Patna High Court
Sangita DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The sealed kitchen premises must be unsealed and the confiscation proceeding quashed as the owner is not an accused and the tenancy is established by the police report.
Summary
Sangita Devi, the owner of a house in Patna, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State authorities to unseal the kitchen of her premises, which had been sealed under an excise case for alleged illicit liquor sales by tenants Amit Kumar and Lal Babu. The petitioner argued that she was not named as an accused, had no knowledge of the illegal activity, and that the seizure was arbitrary, relying on a prior judgment (CWJC No.2129 of 2025). The State contended that the tenancy agreement was notarised after the FIR, questioning its authenticity, and that the burden of proving tenancy lay on the owner. The Court observed that the police raid report itself identified the premises as rented and that no evidence implicated the owner, thus the presumption of guilt under Section 32 could not be applied to her. Consequently, the Court quashed the confiscation proceeding and ordered the immediate unsealing of the premises. The writ petition was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a premises can be seized and confiscated under Sections 30(a), 32(3) and 56(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the owner is not an accused.
- Whether the burden of proving the existence of a tenancy rests on the landlord in such excise proceedings.
- Whether the seizure of the kitchen room is arbitrary and illegal in view of the precedent set in CWJC No.2129 of 2025.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the unsealing of the premises.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a), 32, 32(3), 56(b)
Subjects
- seizure
- confiscation
- excise law
- mandamus
- landlord rights
- illegal liquor
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2333 of 2026
======================================================
Sangita Devi Wife of Arun Rajak Resident of Near Buddha Dental College,
Shiv Ji Sugiya Bhavan, Mahatma Gandhi Nagar, Kankarbagh, P.S.- Patrakar
Nagar, District- Patna, Bihar- 800020.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna, District- Patna.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna.
5. The Station House Officer, Excise Police Station (Utpad Thana), District-
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-4
======================================================
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
AC to SC-4 for the State.
2. The petitioner in this writ application is seeking the
following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of Mandamus, directing and
commanding upon the respondent
authorities to unseal and release Kitchen
Room (inside the Flat on the First Floor,
North Side) located in Mohalla- Golaki
More, Near Jagdamba Colony,
Trikutnagar, Khemanichak, P.S.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2333 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
2/5
Ramkrishna Nagar, District- Patna,
belonging to the Petitioner, which has
been sealed in connection with Excise P.S.
(Patna) Case No. 1142/2025 dated
17.07.2025 registered under Section 30(a)
and 56(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016.
(ii) For issuance of a declaration that the
seizure of the premises is arbitrary and
illegal in light of the law laid down by this
Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 2129 of 2025
(Mahendra Prasad Singh Vs. The State of
Bihar), as the Petitioner is a bona fide
landlord with no knowledge of the tenant's
illegal activities.
a) For any other relief to which the
Petitioner may be entitled.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the house in question. The house was
provided on rent to one Sweety Kumari, D/o- Vinay Singh, R/o-
Mohalla-Kurji Kothiya, Vikash Nagar, P.S.- Phulwarishariff,
District-Patna. The lease period begins from 15.07.2025, which
was come to end on 14.06.2026.
4. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the application
giving rise to F.I.R., it would appear that this case has been
registered on the basis of application submitted by one Sadhna
Kumari, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Excise Police Station,
Patna. She has received the information that one Amit Kumar,
S/o- Dinesh Kumar and his friend Lal Babu, S/o- Late Ramji
Patna High Court CWJC No.2333 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
3/5
Yadav were selling illicit liquors and they were involved in
providing home delivery of the liquor from a rented house in
Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station, Mohalla- Golaki More, Near
Jagdamba Colony, Trikutnagar, Khemanichak, District-Patna. On
the basis of this information, a raid was conducted and on the
first floor of the house, which was taken on rent by Amit Kumar,
two persons were sitting there in the flat, they were interrogated
and huge quantity of liquors were recovered from the flat. Both
persons were arrested and the kitchen room of the flat where the
liquors were stored was seized.
5. It is submitted that in the excise case, giving rise to
Excise P.S. (Patna) Case No.1142 of 2025 registered under
Sections 30(a), 32(3) and 56(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016, the petitioner is not named as an accused. In
course of investigation also name of the petitioner has not
transpired. The submission is that in such circumstances, the
property of the petitioner cannot be subjected to confiscation.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. In the counter affidavit, a plea has
been taken that the authenticity of the Annexure-2 of the writ
application is suspicious because the rent agreement was
notorised on 22.07.2025 for rented period of 15.07.2025 to
Patna High Court CWJC No.2333 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
4/5
14.06.2026. The notorization has been done after F.I.R. was
instituted on 17.07.2025.
7. It is submitted that under Section 32 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the presumption of guilt exists
against the accused, which may be rebutted by leading cogent
evidences. In sum and substance, the plea of the respondents is
that renting out of the premises is unsubstantiated and it is
required to be established by the petitioner.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the records, we
find that the very prosecution case is based on the statement that
the liquors were being sold from a rented premises by Amit
Kumar and Lal Babu. The A.S.I. of Police who conducted the
raid has herself recorded the fact that the recovery has been
made from the rented premises. This being the position, in the
admitted case of the prosecution, by filing a counter affidavit the
respondents cannot be allowed to take a plea that the factum of
tenancy is to be proved by the owner. In course of the
investigation of the case nothing has come against the
petitioner, therefore, in our considered opinion, the sealed
premises is liable to be desealed/unsealed and the same cannot
be subjected to confiscation. The confiscation proceeding,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2333 of 2026(4) dt.15-05-2026
5/5
bearing Excise Confiscation Case No.5960/2025-26, is
accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to unseal the
premises forthwith.
9. This writ application is 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.