Patna High Court
Anish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The e‑rickshaw cannot be confiscated as the vehicle was not used to transport illicit liquor and the owner did not consent, therefore it must be released.
Summary
The petitioner, Anish Kumar, owned an e‑rickshaw that was seized after its driver, Guddu Kumar, allegedly drove while intoxicated and struck a motorcyclist. An FIR was lodged under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The petitioner argued that he had no involvement, the driver had been bailed, and no liquor was recovered from the vehicle, so confiscation was unlawful. The Court examined Sections 30, 37 and 56 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and held that confiscation requires proof that the vehicle was used to transport illicit liquor and that the owner consented or was complicit. Relying on the precedent Sunaina v. State of Bihar, the Court found neither condition satisfied and ordered the vehicle’s release subject to the petitioner filing an application before the Special Excise Judge. The writ petition was consequently disposed, directing the petitioner to comply with procedural conditions for the vehicle’s return.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure and confiscation of the e‑rickshaw is authorized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act when no liquor was found in the vehicle.
- Whether Sections 30(a) and 56 of the Act apply to the present facts.
- Whether the owner’s consent or connivance is a prerequisite for confiscation.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief and release of the vehicle.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 125(a), 125(b), 281
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- confiscation
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- intoxication
- owner liability
- property right
- Article 300A
- Article 14
- e‑rickshaw
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4144 of 2026
======================================================
Anish Kumar Son of Kaushal Prasad, Resident of Kailuchak, P.S.-Masaurhi,
District-Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Bihar.
2. Apar Mukhya Sachiv, Rajaswa evam Utpad Vibhag, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. Zila Samaharta, Jehanabad.
4. Police Adhikshak, Jehanabad.
5. Thana Adhyaksh, Jehanabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Government Pleader-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 30-03-2026
The present writ petition has been filed for release of the
seized Toto / e-Rickshaw bearing Registration No. BR-01RB-
5317, Chassis No. M3JMMMMX1M1K56791 and Motor No.
20241017363, which has been seized in connection with Ghoshi
P.S. Case No. 507/2025 dated 22.9.2025, registered under
Section 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 as also under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
2/11
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are
that the E-rickshaw / toto vehicle of the petitioner was being
driven by one Guddu Kumar on 21.9.2025 and the police
received information that the said Guddu Kumar, who was
driving the toto vehicle has hit one motorcycle rider and when
the police had reached there, they found that the said Guddu
Kumar was in an inebriated condition, however in the meantime
the person, who had been hit by the said toto vehicle, was taken
to the Primary Health Centre, Ghoshi for preliminary treatment,
but was referred to Jehanabad for better treatment. The said
incident led to seizure of the toto vehicle on account of the
driver of the said vehicle, who was driving the same, being in an
inebriated condition and having hit the motorcycle in question,
leading to injuries being sustained by the driver of the said
vehicle. This led to filing of Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 507/2025
under Section 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the petitioner is the owner of the toto vehicle in question,
however the same was being driven by his driver, namely
Guddu Kumar on the alleged date and time of occurrence, who
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
3/11
is alleged to have hit the motorcycle in question, being in an
inebriated condition, leading to injuries being sustained by the
rider of the motorcycle in question, hence it is submitted that the
petitioner is having no complicity in the matter. It is further
submitted that the driver i.e. Guddu Kumar has already been
granted bail and moreover, the petitioner is neither in any way
involved in the alleged occurrence nor he was present at the
time of the occurrence nor he has been made an accused in the
aforesaid excise case. Lastly, it is submitted that no recovery has
been effected from the toto vehicle in question, hence the same
is not liable to be confiscated.
4. Per contra, the learned APP for the Respondent-State has
though vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for
release of the toto vehicle in question, however has not denied
the fact that the FIR in question has been lodged under Section
37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022
& no recovery has been made from the toto vehicle in question.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone through the materials on record. At this juncture, we may
gainfully refer to Section 30 and 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act, 2018), which are reproduced hereinbelow:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
4/11
“30. Penalty for unlawful manufacture, import, export,
transport, possession, sale, purchase, distribution, etc. of
any intoxicant or liquor.-Whoever, in contravention of
any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation, order
made, notification issued thereunder, or without a valid
license, permit or pass issued under this Act, or in breach
of any condition of any license, permit or pass renewed
or authorisation granted thereunder-
(a) Manufactures, possesses, buys, sells, distributes,
collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports,
removes or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor, hemp; or
(b) Constructs or establishes or works in any
manufactory, distillery, brewery or warehouse; or
(c) Manufactures, uses, keeps or has in his possession
any material, utensil, implement or apparatus, or uses
any premises, whatsoever, for the purpose of
manufacturing any intoxicant or liquor; or
(d) Manufactures any material or film either with or
without the State Government logo or logo of any State
or wrapper or any other thing in which liquor or
intoxicant can be packed or any apparatus or
implement or machine, for the purpose of packing any
liquor or intoxicant; or
(e) Removes any liquor or intoxicant from any
distillery, brewery, warehouse, other place of storage
licensed, established, authorized or continued under
this Act; or
(f) Manufactures, possesses, sells, distributes, bottles,
imports, exports, transports or removes, any
preparation made with or without the use of any
intoxicant or liquor, which can serve as an alcohol or a
substitute for alcohol and is used or likely to be used
or consumed for the purposes of getting intoxicated;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for the term
which may extend to life and with fine which may extend
to ten lakh rupees.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
5/11
Provided that the punishment:
(a) For the first offence shall not be less than five years
imprisonment and fine of not less than one lakh rupees,
and
(b) For the second and subsequent offences shall not be
less than ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of not
less than five lakh rupees.
37. Penalty for consumption of liquor. Whoever, in
contravention of this Act or the rules, notification or
order made thereunder-
(a) consumes liquor or intoxicant in any place; or
(b) is found drunk or in a state of drunkenness at any
place; or
(c) drinks and creates nuisance or violence at any
place including in his own house or premises; or
(d) permits or facilitates drunkenness or allows
assembly of drunken elements in his own house or
premises;
shall be punishable,
(1) in case of an offence falling under clause (a) and
(b),for the first offence only with fine which shall not be
less than Fifty thousand rupees or in lieu thereof sentence
for a period of three months imprisonment but for
subsequent offence falling under clause (a) and (b), shall
be punishable with a term which shall not be less than
one year but may extend to five years and with fine,
which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(2) In case of an offence falling under clause (c) and (d),
with a term which shall not be less than five years but
which may extend to ten years and with fine, which shall
not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to five
lakh rupees."
6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Excise
Act / Rules would show that an offence under Section 30(a) of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
6/11
the Amendment Act, 2018 is made out only in case the
concerned person manufactures, possesses, buys, sells,
distributes, collects, stores, bottles, imports, exports, transports,
removes, or cultivates any intoxicant, liquor, hemp etc., however
in the present case, the offence under Section 30(a) of the
Amendment Act, 2018 is not made out, inasmuch as there is no
allegation of transporting of any illicit liquor on the said toto
vehicle. At best, an offence under Section 37 of the Amendment
Act, 2018 may be made out on account of the said Guddu
Kumar having consumed liquor / intoxicant, nonetheless the
same is yet to be proved.
7. Now coming to Section 56 of the Amendment Act, 2022,
we find that the offence regarding transporting of illicit liquor
by means of the vehicle in question is required to be made out
for confiscation under Section 56 of the Amendment Act, 2022,
however in the present case, no allegation has been levelled to
the effect that the said Guddu Kumar was transporting any illicit
liquor by means of the said toto vehicle in question.
8. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a judgment
rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sunaina vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2024 SCC
Online Pat. 851, paragraphs no. 24 to 28 are reproduced herein
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
7/11
below:-
“24. It is also pertinent to note that in the light of
various pronouncements of this Court, Bihar
Government has issued letter dated 07.02.2020 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
Government 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 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
8/11
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.
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 and confiscation of the
motorcycle in question is without any authority of law.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
9/11
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.”
9. We may also like to mention here that the petitioner had
filed a petition before the Ld. Court of Special Excise Judge-I,
Jehanabad for release of the vehicle in question, however the
said petition has been rejected, vide order dated 5.12.2025 on
the ground of bar of jurisdiction under Section 60 of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, as amended up to date with
respect to making any order with regard to release of the vehicle
in question, inasmuch as the Ld. Collector has been empowered
to release the vehicle in question under Section 57B of the Act,
2016, as amended up to date.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find
that since the vehicle in question was not being used to transport
any illicit liquor, no offence is made out under the provisions of
Section 30(a) of the Amendment Act, 2018. Thus, in case the
vehicle was not being used for carrying illicit liquor, the same
cannot be confiscated under Section 56 of the Amendment Act,
2022. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by a coordinate
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
10/11
Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina (supra) and
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case as
also for the foregoing reasons, we find that the toto vehicle in
question is required to be released in favour of the petitioner,
subject to him producing documents, showing his ownership of
the said toto vehicle in question, however subject to such
conditions, as may be imposed by the Ld. Court of Special
Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case
no. 507/2025.
11. In view of the aforesaid, we grant liberty to the petitioner
to file appropriate application before the Ld. Court of Special
Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case
no. 507/2025 for imposition of such conditions as may be
deemed fit and proper in order to ensure that the toto vehicle in
question may be produced before the concerned Court as and
when required, in view of the aforesaid FIR being also
registered under Section 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is needless to state that in case
appropriate petition is filed by the petitioner within a period of
two weeks from today before the Ld. Court of Special Excise
Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with Ghoshi P.S. Case no.
507/2025, the Ld. Court of Special Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad
Patna High Court CWJC No.4144 of 2026 dt.30-03-2026
11/11
shall impose such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper
for securing the vehicle as and when required, by passing
appropriate orders within a period of two weeks, thereafter.
12. The petitioner shall, thereafter approach the Ld. Collector,
Jehanabad along with the said order to be passed by the Ld.
Court of Special Excise Judge-I, Jehanabad in connection with
Ghoshi P.S. Case no. 507/2025, whereupon subject to the
petitioner complying with such conditions as have been fixed,
the toto vehicle in question shall be released in favor of the
petitioner within a period of two weeks, thereafter subject to the
Ld. Collector, Jehanabad being satisfied about the ownership of
the petitioner regarding the vehicle in question.
13. The writ petition stands disposed off on the aforesaid
terms.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.