Patna High Court
Partha Sarathi SarkarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
An owner of a stolen vehicle who is not implicated in the theft or subsequent offences is not liable to pay a penalty and may obtain release of the vehicle without penalty.
Summary
The petitioner, a resident of West Bengal, claimed ownership of a vehicle that had been stolen and later used to transport liquor, leading to its seizure under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The theft was recorded under IPC section 379, and a separate case was filed for the liquor offence. The State argued that the petitioner had no involvement in either the theft or the liquor transport, and the police had already charged the actual offenders. The Court noted that the petitioner’s name did not appear in any investigation and, following precedent, held that an owner of a stolen vehicle is not liable to pay a penalty in confiscation proceedings. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to apply to the Confiscating Authority for the vehicle’s release without any penalty, and disposed of the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the owner of a stolen vehicle can be held liable to pay a penalty in confiscation proceedings under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the seized vehicle without penalty.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379
Subjects
- stolen vehicle
- confiscation
- penalty
- release of seized property
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Indian Penal Code
- owner liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4796 of 2026
======================================================
Partha Sarathi Sarkar, Son of Sunil Kumar Sarkar, Resident of village-
Nightingale Nursing Home, G.T. Road Opposite of Indian Oxyzen Company,
Gopalpur, Raghunath Clock, P.S. - U.C. Danga, Distt. - Bardhman, West
Bengal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of
Prohibition and Excise, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Department of Pohibition and Excise, Govt. of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. The Excise Superintendent, Vaishali at Hajipur.
7. The S.H.O. Patepur Police Station, Distt. Vaishali.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No.II, Advocate
Ms. Ananya Harsh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad, SC-8
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
SC-8 for the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking release
of the vehicle bearing registration no. WB38AY0816, Engine
No. D4FAMM417575 which has been seized in connection with
Patepur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024 registered under Sections
30(a), 32(ii), 41(i) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4796 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
2018.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. The said vehicle was
stolen away for which Kaushambi P.S. Case No. 235 of 2024
was registered against unknown for the offence under Section
379 of the Indian Penal Code. The said vehicle was being
misused by the miscreants after tampering its registration
number and engine number. The vehicle has later been found
transporting liquor for which Patepur P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024
has been registered and the vehicle had been seized. The
confiscation proceeding has been recommended.
4. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the
petitioner is a resident of the State of West Bengal, however, he
claims that his vehicle was stolen away from Ghaziabad.
Learned counsel submits that he has received instruction and
according to his instruction, the police has already submitted a
chargesheet against the persons from whose possession the
vehicle has been found. The investigation did not reveal any
involvement of this petitioner in the theft case or in the liquor
case.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and the admitted position that the vehicle in question was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4796 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
stolen away, in the said case, police has submitted a chargesheet
against the persons who were involved and the name of the
petitioner has not transpired either in the matter of theft of the
vehicle or in the matter of transportation of the liquor in the said
vehicle.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we grant liberty
to the petitioner to make an application before the Confiscating
Authority for release of the vehicle in question without any
penalty and in case such an application is filed, the Confiscating
Authority shall pass an appropriate order for release of the
vehicle in question. The fact being that the vehicle is a stolen
one, the Confiscating Authority shall not burden the petitioner
by imposing any penalty. This order is being passed keeping in
view the catena of judgments of this Court that in a case of
stolen vehicle where the involvement of the owner of the
vehicle has not come in course of investigation, he would not be
liable to pay penalty.
7. This application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Soni Shrivastava, J)
SUSHMA2/-
U
Checking your session…