Patna High Court

Sonu Kumar RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 13 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle was illegal, the writ was allowed, and the State must pay Rs. 50,000 cost and compensation, with jurisdiction for release resting with the Exclusive Special Excise Court.

Summary

The petitioner, Sonu Kumar Rai, challenged the seizure of his motorcycle by police during a liquor raid, arguing that no liquor was found in his vehicle and that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 permits confiscation only when a vehicle is used to transport illicit liquor. The High Court held that the seizure was unlawful because the vehicle was not involved in any offence under the Act, and the police had no statutory authority to release it without following the procedure under Rule 12A or the Special Excise Court. The Court further clarified that Section 60 of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special Excise Court to order release of vehicles not liable to confiscation. Consequently, the writ application was allowed and the State was ordered to pay the petitioner Rs. 50,000 as cost and compensation, to be recovered from the erring officials. The judgment also reiterated principles of public accountability for administrative actions.

Issues considered

Whether a vehicle not used for transporting liquor can be lawfully seized and confiscated under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
Whether Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 applies to a vehicle seized without basis under the Act.
Whether the Exclusive Special Excise Court's jurisdiction is ousted by Section 60 of the Act in matters of release of such vehicles.
Whether the police officer had any statutory power to release the seized vehicle during pendency of the writ.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to cost and compensation for the unlawful seizure.

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments and Security System (BNSS) (formerly CrPC) — s. 503
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 56(2), 57B, 60, 95
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
CrPC (as referenced) — s. 457

Subjects

vehicle seizure
illegal confiscation
Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
Rule 12A
Special Excise Court
public accountability
compensation
writ jurisdiction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5044 of 2026
======================================================
Sonu Kumar Rai S/o Bhageshwar Ray, Resident of Vill.-Gangoi, P.O.-
Shyamkauria, P.S.-Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.

... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Excise Department,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chhapra.
5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Marhaurah II, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.
6. The S.H.O. Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.
7. The Investigating Officer, Ishuapur, Dist.-Saran at Chhapra.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Noumaan Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Sharfraz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Roy-1, SC 13
Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC 13
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 13-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State.

2. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 12.05.2026, the

S.H.O. of the Ishuapur Police Station in the District of Saran at

Chapra is present online. This Court has made queries from the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
2/18

S.H.O. with regard to the seizure and release of the vehicle in

question.

3. This writ application has been preferred seeking

release of the vehicle in question being Registration No. BR-

04AU/9072, Chassis No. MD625AF99R2K34346, Engine No.

AF9KR2333518 belonging to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle in

question was seized by one Heera Kumar Paswan the S.I. of the

Police Ishuapur Police Station on 17.12.2025 at about 21:35 hours.

It is stated that near the Kirana shop in which the police party had

conducted the raid, 4 motorcycles were standing, which were

seized by police. One of the motorcycles was this TVS rider. Three

persons were apprehended by police and three motorcycles, from

which altogether 5 litres 400 ml of liquors were seized, were also

seized by police. In the motorcycle belonging to this petitioner no

liquor was found, therefore, the motorcycle of the petitioner was

not liable to be seized. It is submitted that Section 56 of the Bihar

Prohibition and Excise Act provides for confiscation of certain

items. Under sub-section 2 of Section 56, confiscation of the

vehicle seized in connection with the transportation of the liquor

is permissible, but a vehicle which is not found transporting liquor,

the police official would not be justified in seizing the said vehicle.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
3/18

Reference in this regard has been made to the judgment of Hon’ble

Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina @ Suneina

versus State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2024 (3) BLJ 163.

5. Learned counsel submits that when the petitioner

challenged the seizure of the vehicle and prayed for release by

filing this writ application, in a hurry and hot haste, S.H.O. of the

police station released the vehicle in favour of the petitioner during

the pendency of the writ application. This was done immediately

after this Court called upon the respondents to file counter

affidavit with a clear observation that if the seizure is found to be

illegal, the S.H.O. of the concerned police station may be liable to

pay cost and compensation for the same. It is submitted that even

at this stage, the police officer seems to have acted in haste as even

without any order of the competent court of law or the authority as

envisaged under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, the

vehicle has been released. This has been done only to save their

skin as the police officials found themselves in a wrong box, they

were aware that seizure of the vehicle will be held illegal, they

could pre-empt that for unlawful seizure of the vehicle they may

have to face the consequences.

6. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the

vehicle in question was seized when it was parked near the Kirana
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
4/18

shop. The S.I. of the Police Heera Paswan brought the vehicle to

the police station, but there is no denial of the fact that from the

vehicle in question no alcohol/liquor was seized.

7. Learned counsel submits that when the present

S.H.O., Mr. Gaurav Kumar, joined in the month of April, 2026, he

got the verification of the vehicle done through the District

Transport Office. The vehicle in question not being involved in

transportation of liquor, on obtaining order from the Inspector, the

vehicle has been released in favour of the petitioner. The S.H.O. of

the Ishuapur Police Station, who is present online, has admitted

that since the seizure of the vehicle, till his joining in the month of

April, 2026, neither the verification of the ownership of the vehicle

was done nor any step was taken otherwise to submit a report to

the Court/competent authority showing that the vehicle is not

involved in transportation of the liquor.

Consideration

8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

State as also the S.H.O. of the Ishuapur Police Station, we find that

there is an admission on the part of the respondents that vehicle in

question was seized when it was standing parked near the Kirana

shop. The vehicle was not carrying any liquor, therefore, under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
5/18

provisions of the Act of 2016, it was not liable to be seized much

less confiscated.

9. In the case of Sunaina (surpa) this Court has held as

under:-

“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.”

10. This Court, therefore, finds that seizure of the

vehicle in question was wholly illegal and it was done by S.I. of

police without there being any basis. The seizure is illegal, not

having any sanction of law.

11. This Court further finds that after seizure of the

vehicle, it was kept in the police station but without carrying any
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
6/18

verification of the ownership of the vehicle and no intimation was

given to the owner of the vehicle to inform that the vehicle may be

taken away from the police station. This Court finds that even

though the seizure list was filed in the Court of learned

Jurisdictional Special Exclusive Excise Judge, no report was

submitted after carrying investigation, if any, with regard to the

involvement of the vehicle. The police officer knew that the

vehicle was not carrying any liquor still seizure was made and

when this Court called upon the respondent S.H.O. to file a

counter affidavit, then in a hurry the vehicle was released in favour

of the petitioner.

12. Section 95 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act,

2016, empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out

the purposes of the Act. Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021

has been made by the Government of Bihar in exercise of its

power under Section 95 of the Act. Rule 12A, as inserted in 2022

by way of amendment, provides for release of vehicle, conveyance

etc. on payment of penalty. This Rule is applicable to all pending

confiscation/auction proceedings by virtue of its Explanation. This

Rule reads as follows:—

“12A. Release of Vehicles,
Conveyance etc. on Payment of Penalty.— (1)
If any vehicles, conveyance, vessel, animal etc.
has been seized by any police or excise officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
7/18

under the Act, then in terms of Section 57B (1)
of the Act, the Collector or an officer
authorized by him upon receipt of an
application in Form IV by the owner of the said
conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the
said conveyance or vehicle upon payment of
such penalty as may be ordered by the
Collector or the officer authorized by him.
Provided, where it is not possible
to ascertain the owner of the vehicle or the
owner is not coming to claim the vehicle, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him,
after waiting for 15 days from the date of
seizure, shall proceed to confiscate and auction
the vehicle as per the provisions of the Act.
(2) The amount of penalty shall be
as decided by the Collector or the Officer
authorized by him. While imposing the penalty,
he shall have due regard to the quantity of
intoxicant recovered, involvement of the
vehicle owner and the latest insurance value of
the vehicle. In no case, the penalty should be
less than 10% of the insured value of the
vehicle and more than Rs. 5 lakhs. The insured
value is the value of the vehicle as assessed by
the insurance company. Where, the insured
value is not available or the Collector or the
Officer authorized by him has reason to believe
that the vehicle is undervalued, he shall get the
valuation done by the District Transport
Officer. In any case, the Collector shall not
wait beyond 15 days from the date of seizure
and if during this period, the accused/owner
does not pay up the penalty, he shall proceed
with the confiscation/auction.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
8/18

(3) Notwithstanding above, if on a
report by police officer or excise officer, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him is
satisfied that releasing the vehicle or
conveyance shall not be in the public interest,
he shall proceed ahead with the confiscation of
the said vehicle or conveyance and its
subsequent auction/disposal.
(4) Where the conveyance is such
that its valuation/insurance is not possible, the
Collector or the officer authorized by him shall
impose such fine as he deems fit. While
imposing such fine, the Collector or the officer
authorized by him shall have due regard to the
economic status of the individual, nature of his
involvement in the crime and the quantum of
intoxicant recovered.
(5) Such penalty shall be,
regardless of the outcome of the trial if any,
before the Special Court, non-refundable.
(6) The owner of the
vehicle/conveyance shall, after the release of
the vehicle/conveyance, produce the
vehicle/conveyance as and when required by
the authorities.
Explanation. In all
pending/ongoing cases of confiscation/auction
of vehicles, the Collector or the officer
authorized by him may give an opportunity to
the existing owner to pay the aforesaid penalty
and get the vehicle released. Upon satisfaction
about ownership and upon payment of such
penalty, the ongoing confiscation/auction
proceeding may be dropped and the vehicle
released.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
9/18

(Emphasis supplied)

13. It is evident that Rule 12A would not be applicable

in the facts of this case.

14. Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 provides that when

any vehicle, conveyance, vessel, animal etc. has been seized by

any police or excise officer under the Act in terms of Section 57B

(1) of the Act, the Collector or an officer authorized by him upon

receipt of an application in Form-IV by the owner of the said

conveyance or vehicle etc., may release the said conveyance or

vehicle upon payment of such penalty as may be ordered by the

Collector or the officer authorized by him. Proviso to Rule 12A

states that when it is not possible to ascertain the owner of the

vehicle or the owner is not coming to claim the vehicle, the

Collector or the officer authorized by him, after waiting for 15

days from the date of seizure, shall proceed to confiscate and

auction the vehicle as per the provisions of the Act.

15. A bare reading of Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021

would show that it is based on a pre-supposition that the vehicle in

question has been seized in accordance with law as contained

under Section 57B of the Act of 2016. We reproduce Section 57B

hereinunder for a ready reference:

“57B. Things or premises liable to be
released upon penalty. - (1) Any animal, vehicle,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
10/18

vessel or other conveyance used for committing any
offence punishable under this Act that has been seized
by any police Officer or Excise Officer may be
released by the Collector upon payment of such
penalty as may be notified by the State Government.
(2) Any premises or part thereof used for
committing any offence punishable under this Act that
has been seized by any police Officer or Excise
Officer may be released by the Collector upon
payment of such penalty as may be notified by the
State Government.
(3) If the person concerned does not pay
the penalty, then the Collector shall proceed to
confiscate the said animal, vehicle, vessel or other
conveyance and premises as per section-58.”

16. On a conjoint reading of Section 57B of the Act of

2016 and Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021, it would be crystal clear

that the legislatures have framed the laws with an understanding

that no police officer or excise officer shall seize a vehicle if the

vehicle is not being used for committing any offence punishable

under the Act of 2016. The legislature could not have thought that

a police officer while discharging his duties may indulge in misuse

of his position and power by taking into possession a vehicle

which is not engaged in transportation of liquor. It is only because

of this reason, perhaps, no provision has been introduced in the

special Statute and the Rules framed thereunder to deal with the

present situation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
11/18

17. At this stage, we would take a glance over the

provisions of law relating to release of seized articles in

connection with an offence by a regular Court. Section 457 of the

CrPC (now Section 503 of the BNSS) provides the procedures by

police upon seizure of property. Section 503 BNSS is being

extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-

“503. Procedure by police upon seizure of
property. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by
any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under
the provisions of this Sanhita, and such property is
not produced before a Criminal Court during an
inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such
order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of
such property or the delivery of such property to
the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if
such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the
custody and production of such property.

(2) If the person so entitled is known, the
Magistrate may order the property to be delivered
to him on such conditions (if any) as the
Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is
unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall,
in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the
articles of which such property consists, and
requiring any person who may have a claim
thereto, to appear before him and establish his
claim within six months from the date of such
proclamation.”

18. The Act of 2016 has been enacted to enforce,

implement and promote complete prohibition of liquor and
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
12/18

intoxicants in the territory of the State of Bihar. The Act attempts

to provide a uniform law relating to prohibition and regulation of

liquor and intoxicants, levy of duty thereunder and punishment

for violation of law in the State of Bihar. Section 60 of the Act of

2016 reads as under:-

“60. Bar of jurisdiction in confiscation.-
Whenever any liquor, material, still, utensil,
implements or apparatus or any receptacle,
package, any animal cart, vessel, or other
conveyance used in committing any offence, is
seized or detained under this Act, no court shall
have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law for the time being in
force, jurisdiction to make any order with regard to
such property.”

19. By virtue of Section 60 of the Act of 2016, in the

matters relating to release of a vehicle found involved in

commission of an offence under the Act of 2016, application

seeking release of vehilce cannot be filed in the regular courts

under the CrPC/BNSS.

20. We have noticed Section 95 of the Act of 2016 and

Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021, (as amended up-to-date). It is

evident on reading of Section 60 of the Act of 2016 together with

Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 that where a vehicle is found

involved in transportation of liquor and is seized in connection

therewith, it would be liable to be confiscated. In such matters,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
13/18

release of vehicle may be allowed only by the competent

authority under Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 on payment of

penalty as envisaged under the Rules.

What will be the situation when a police officer seizes a

vehicle even as the vehicle is not involved in transportation of

liquor but the FIR is registered under the provisions of the Act of

2016?

21. Whether the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special

Excise Court stands ousted in such matters also where the vehicle

has, though been seized in connection with a case registered

under the Act of 2016 but the police officer finds that the vehicle

is not liable to be seized and cannot be recommended for

confiscation? To this Court, it appears that where the police

officer who seized the vehicle realizes that the vehicle is not

liable be seized or detained in connection with the case registered

under the Act of 2016, he must act bonafidely and bring it to the

notice of the learned Jurisdictional Court i.e. court of Exclusive

Special Judge, Excise with a prayer to allow him to release the

vehicle in favour of the owner. In such cases where during or

after completion of investigation of a case, it is found that the

vehicle or any other article seized is not liable to be seized, not

recommended for confiscation or is not required to be detained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
14/18

connection with the case, the learned Exclusive Special Judge,

Excise shall be competent to order release of the vehicle or the

article as the case may be.

The present case is a perfect example of the circumstance

where the vehicle has been seized even as admittedly no liquor

was found under transportation in the vehicle. Police has not

recommended for confiscation, still the vehicle remained under

seizure in the police station. Rule 12A of the Rules of 2021 takes

care of only such releases where the vehicle is found involved in

commission of an offence under the Act of 2016, on payment of

penalty in terms of the scheme of the Rules of 2021. This Court,

therefore, finds that a person aggrieved by seizure of the present

nature cannot be left remediless and the Court has to take an

appropriate view of the matter without doing any violation with

the provisions of the special legislation and the Rules framed

thereunder.

22. We are of the opinion that Section 60 of the Act of

2016 does not oust the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special

Excise Court in granting release of the vehicle or other articles

which are not found involved in commission of an offence under

the Act of 2016. The special court is competent to pass an order

for release of vehicle or other articles in such cases either on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
15/18

basis of an application of the police officer informing the court

that the vehicle or the other article is not liable to be seized or on

an application filed by the aggrieved person bringing it to the

notice of the court that his vehicle or the article has been seized

even as those are not involved in commission of an offence under

the Act of 2016, hence not recommended for confiscation. On

such application, the court may call for a report from the police

and consider the application. This remedy may be applied for in

appropriate cases.

23. In the present case, the S.H.O. of the Isuapur Police

Station released the vehicle during pendency of the writ

application immediately after this Court called for a response

vide order dated 12.05.2026. This Court called upon the S.H.O.

to show as to under which provision of law he could exercise his

power to release the vehicle. He could not show any power

conferred upon him by the statute.

24. This being the position, while allowing the writ

application, for unlawful seizure of the vehicle for four months

approx, we direct the State of Bihar (Respondent no.1) to pay cost

and compensation collectively assessed at Rs. 50,000/- to the

petitioner within a period of one month from the date of

receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
16/18

25. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs.

M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has observed in paragraph-11 as under:

“11….. Public administration, no doubt
involves a vast amount of administrative discretion
which shields the action of administrative authority.
But where it is found that the exercise of discretion
was mala fide and the complainant is entitled to
compensation for mental and physical harassment
then the officer can no more claim to be under
protective cover….”

26. Dealing with the afore-mentioned principle of

accountability, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of

Delhi Airtech Service Private Limited and Anr. vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and Anr. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 354 in

paragraph nos. ‘215’ and ‘218’ as under:

“215…. The principles of public
accountability and transparency in State action are
applicable to cases of executive or statutory exercise
of power, besides requiring that such actions also not
lack bona fides. All these principles enunciated by the
Court over a passage of time clearly mandate that
public officers are answerable for both their inaction
and irresponsible actions. If what ought to have been
done is not done, responsibility should be fixed on the
erring officers; then alone, the real public purpose of
the answerable administration would be satisfied.”
218. Principles of public accountability
are applicable to such officers/officials with all their
rigour. Greater the power to decide, higher is the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
17/18

responsibility to be just and fair. The dimensions of
administrative law permit judicial intervention in
decisions, though of administrative nature, which are
ex facie discriminatory. The adverse impact of lack of
probity in discharge of public duties can result in
varied defects, not only in the decision making process
but in the final decision as well. Every officer in the
hierarchy of the State, by virtue of his being “public
officer” or “public servant” is accountable for his
decisions to the public as well as to the State. This
concept of dual responsibility should be applied with
its rigours in the large public interest and for proper
governance.”

27. Following the aforesaid principles, the Patna High

Court has held in the case of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar

Pathak Vs. Ravi Shankar Prasad and Others reported in 2019

(1) PLJR 1051, that whenever State is saddled with cost and

compensation for the misuse of power by the executives of the

State, such cost and compensation should be realized from the

erring officials. The public exchequer cannot be burdened by

directing payment of money without realizing the same from the

officers whose misuse of power has resulted in imposition of cost

and compensation against the State. The order of this Court in case

of K.K. Pathak @ Keshav Kumar Pathak (supra) was

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.

003566/2019, however, no interference was made with the order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5044 of 2026 dt.13-05-2026
18/18

28. We, therefore, direct that the cost and compensation

of Rs.50,000/- shall be realized from the erring officials in

accordance with the law.

29. Accordingly, this application is allowed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/prachi/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.05.2026
Transmission Date 16.05.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.