Patna High Court
Rahul Raj Kumar @ Rahul RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A vehicle cannot be confiscated or subjected to a penalty unless it is used in the offence and the owner is complicit; therefore the orders imposing a penalty are set aside and the vehicle must be released without charge.
Summary
The petitioner, a driver of an Ola‑registered Alto, was stopped by police who recovered illicit liquor from four passengers but none from the driver or the vehicle. The Additional Collector ordered the vehicle’s release only upon payment of a penalty, which the Excise Commissioner later modified to a higher amount. The petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act a vehicle can be seized only if it is used in the offence and the owner is complicit. The High Court, relying on precedents such as Sunaina v. State of Bihar, held that neither the vehicle nor its driver was involved in transporting the liquor and that no connivance existed, making confiscation unlawful. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Additional Collector’s and the Excise Commissioner’s orders and directed the release of the vehicle without any penalty, allowing the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle can be confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act when illicit liquor is recovered only from passengers and not from the vehicle or driver
- Whether the owner/driver’s lack of involvement or connivance bars the imposition of a penalty for release of the vehicle
- Whether the orders of the Additional Collector and Excise Commissioner violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 300A
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30, 47
Subjects
- vehicle confiscation
- illicit liquor
- owner liability
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- penalty
- writ petition
- constitutional property right
- Article 14
- Article 300A
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3167 of 2026
======================================================
Rahul Raj Kumar @ Rahul Raj, Son of Brijeshwar Ram @ Brajeshwar Ray,
Resident of Village- Bhadwas, P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda.
4. The Additional Collector cum Additional District Magistrate, Nalanda.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Nalanda.
6. The Officer in-Charge, P.S. Bihar, District Nalanda.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Damini, Advocate
Mr. Vishnu Manjali, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, GP 16
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shrivastava, AC to GP 16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 16-03-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the
order dated 30.08.2025, passed by the learned Additional
Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nalanda in
Confiscation (Excise) Case No.145 of 2025, in connection with
Biharsharif P.S. Case No. 159 of 2025 dated 12.03.2025, registered
under Sections 30(a), 41 and 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
2/10
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act,
2022’). The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the appellate
order dated 24.12.2025, passed by the learned Excise
Commissioner, Bihar in Excise Appeal Case No.195 of 2025 as
also release his Alto car bearing registration No. BR 01 PK 7909,
Chassis No. MA3EUA61S00F16890, Engine No. F8DN6268612
in his favour without being asked to deposit any penalty.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Bihar Police station along with armed force
had left for patrolling duty on 11.03.2025 at about 22:00 hours and
were checking vehicles on 12.03.2025 at about 3:30 am, one white
colour Alto car was seen coming from the side of Nakatpura
bearing registration No. BR 01 PK 7909, which was stopped by
the patrolling party and it was found that apart from the driver four
persons were sitting in the said vehicle whereafter, upon search
being made, 1.485 liters of foreign liquor and 555 ml of country
made liquor was recovered from the passengers, however
admittedly no illicit liquor was recovered from the driver of the
vehicle. The said occurrence had led to filing of the aforesaid FIR
bearing Biharsharif P.S. Case No.159 of 2025.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had filed an application for release of the vehicle under
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
3/10
Section 12A (2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment)
Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 2023’), however
the learned court of Additional Collector-cum-Additional District
Magistrate, Nalanda by an order dated 30.08.2025 has directed to
release the vehicle upon payment of penalty to the tune of Rs.
1,45,000/- as also payment of 3% charge on the head of security
and maintenance of the vehicle in question, totaling to a sum of
Rs. 4350/-. The petitioner had challenged the said order dated
30.08.2025 by filing an appeal bearing Excise Appeal Case No.
195 of 2025, however the learned Commissioner, Bihar Patna, by
an order dated 24.12.2025, while holding that the learned counsel
for the petitioner has not been able to produce any proof regarding
the vehicle in question not being used for transporting illicit liquor,
has directed for release of the vehicle upon payment of 25% of the
newest insurance value of the vehicle in question and as to the said
extent set aside the order dt. 30.8.2025, passed by the Ld.
Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nalanda.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
admittedly, the petitioner is the driver of Ola vehicle and during
the ordinary course of his business, the said car was booked by
passengers and while he was transporting four passengers in the
said car, the police patrolling party had apprehended the car and
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
4/10
upon search, illicit liquor, as aforesaid, was recovered from one of
the said four passengers from the front seat. Thus, it is submitted
that admittedly, neither the petitioner is having any role in ferrying
of the said illicit liquor nor his car was being used to illegally
transport illicit liquor. Thus, it is submitted that a lenient view be
taken and the vehicle of the petitioner be released.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State
has though opposed the prayer of the petitioner for release of the
vehicle upon payment of penalty, however he has not been able to
show from the records that the petitioner is having any complicity
in the matter, much less his vehicle is regularly involved in
transportation of illicit liquor or the petitioner is involved in other
cases of similar nature.
6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and we find
from the records as also from the contents of the aforesaid FIR that
admittedly the petitioner is the driver of an Ola vehicle and he was
driving the same at the time it was apprehended by the police,
whereupon search was made and illicit liquor, as aforesaid was
recovered from the passenger sitting in the front seat, however no
illicit liquor was recovered from the driver of the said vehicle.
7. At this juncture, we may refer to the law laid down by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina vs. State
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
5/10
of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat 851 and the
Judgment dt. 18.11.2025 passed in the case of Ali Ashraf Siddique
vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.16421 of 2025),
wherein it has been held 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,
the vehicle cannot be subjected to confiscation proceedings. In this
regard, we may gainfully refer to paragraph Nos. 20 to 30 of the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Sunaina (supra) which 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
6/10
consumption without any knowledge of the owner of the
vehicle, such vehicle cannot be construed of having
indulged in 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 LiveLaw (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 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-
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
7/10
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 & 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
8/10
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.
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
(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 neither the illicit liquor was recovered from
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
9/10
the driver of the said Alto car nor the illicit liquor has been
recovered from the vehicle in question, however the same has been
recovered from the passenger sitting in the front seat. Hence,
neither the driver is in any way involved in commission of the
alleged offence nor there is any material to show that the vehicle
was being illegally used for ferrying illicit liquor, which is an
essential prerequisite for confiscation of the vehicle or imposing
any penalty for release of the vehicle. Therefore, we are of the
opinion that the impugned orders dated 30.8.2025 and 24.12.2025,
passed by the Ld. Additional Collector-cum-Additional District
Magistrate, Nalanda and learned Excise Commissioner, Bihar
respectively, have not only failed to consider the aforesaid aspect
of the matter but are also in the teeth of the law laid down by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina (supra), hence
are perverse and illegal.
9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders dated
30.8.2025 and 24.12.2025, passed by the Ld. Additional Collector-
cum-Additional District Magistrate, Nalanda and learned Excise
Commissioner, Bihar respectively, are set aside.
10. Consequently, we direct the competent authority to
release the Alto vehicle of the petitioner without levying any
Patna High Court CWJC No.3167 of 2026 dt.16-03-2026
10/10
penalty within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt/
communication of a copy of this order.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
GAURAV S./-
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.03.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…