Patna High Court
Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
Section 60 does not bar the court from ordering release of the mobile phone and cash when the investigating officer reports they are not required for investigation.
Summary
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, challenged the seizure of his mobile phone and Rs. 8,360 cash by police during a liquor recovery operation, alleging that the Special Exclusive Excise Court wrongly refused to order their release. He argued that Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which bars courts from dealing with confiscated liquor‑related property, does not apply to his mobile phone and cash, especially after the investigating officer reported they were no longer needed for investigation. The State contended that the bar under Section 60 precluded any court order for release. The High Court examined the scope of Section 60 and held that it is limited to liquor, materials, and related implements, and does not extend to items not required for investigation. Consequently, the court set aside the lower court’s order, directed the investigating officer to release the mobile phone and cash upon proof of ownership, and allowed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Does Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 bar a court from ordering the release of a seized mobile phone and cash when the investigating officer reports they are not required for investigation?
- Did the Special Exclusive Excise Court have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for release of the mobile phone and cash?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- seizure
- confiscation
- Section 60
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- mobile phone
- cash
- investigating officer report
- exclusive excise court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5368 of 2026
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Son of Brijanand Sah, Resident of Village- Dharahara, P.S.-
Krishnabrahm, District- Buxar.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise,
Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Buxar
3. The Superintendent of Police, Buxar
4. The S.H.O. Krishnabrah Police Station, Buxar
5. The Investigating Officer of Krishnabrahm P.S. Case no. 127/25, district -
Buxar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, JC to GA-2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 07-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. Petitioner in this case is seeking the following
reliefs:-
"(i) For quashing of order dated 05.02.2026
passed by Special Exclusive Excise Court no.
2 at Buxar whereby and whereunder learned
Special Exclusive Excise Court no. 2 at Buxar
has rejected the application of petitioner filed
for release of Mobile and cash of Rs. 8,360/-
which is illegally seized by police.
(ii) For direction to respondent authorities to
release the Vivo Mobile Phone No.
8252684451 (IMEI No. 869540076436653,
Patna High Court CWJC No.5368 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/4
869540076436646) and cash of Rs. 8,360/-
(Eight Thousand Three Hundred Sixty only)
which seized by the police in Krishnabrah P.S.
Case No. 127 of 2025.
(iii) For any other relief/reliefs for which
petitioner shall be found entitled under the fact
and circumstances of the case under principle
of equitable justice.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from the shop 540 ml. of liquor is said to have been recovered.
The I.O. however, seized his mobile phone and Rs. 8,360/- in
cash. For release of the mobile phone and the cash he had
approached the learned trial court. It is submitted that the
learned trial court has, however, rejected the prayer of the
petitioner taking a view that the court has no jurisdiction to
entertain an application for release of the vehicle liable to be
confiscated under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and
Excise Act, 2016 (as amended up-to-date) (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the Act of 2016’). It is submitted that Section 60 of the
Act of 2016 has no application in this case. The mobile phone
and cash would have been released particularly when the I.O.
had submitted his report clearly saying that he did not require
the mobile phone and cash in course of investigation.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State. In paragraph '11' of the counter affidavit, it is reiterated
Patna High Court CWJC No.5368 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/4
that the Investigating Officer has already reported before the
learned Special Judge that the cash and mobile phone are no
more required for the purpose of investigation.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to Section
60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 which 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."
6. A bare perusal of Section 60 of the Act of 2016
would show that the jurisdiction of the learned court has been
taken away limited to the seizures or detention of these liquor,
materials and other things mentioned in Section 60. This Court
is of the opinion that when the I.O. of the case had already
submitted a report that the mobile phone and cash are not
required for purpose of investigation of the case, the bar under
Section 60 of the Act of 2016 would not operate. The law is
meant to facilitate justice and not to create hardships.
7. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The I.O. is
directed to release the mobile phone and cash to the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5368 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
4/4
The learned Exclusive Special Judge Excise, Buxar shall issue
an order of release in favour of the petitioner on showing the
document of ownership of the mobile phone.
8. This writ application is allowed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
amitkumar/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.