Patna High Court
Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The confiscation proceeding is misconceived; the owner of a stolen vehicle cannot be penalized and the vehicle must be released without penalty.
Summary
Petitioner Gautam Kumar claimed ownership of a Scorpio vehicle seized by the Excise Department for allegedly transporting 547.02 litres of foreign liquor, invoking Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. He asserted that the vehicle had been stolen on 22 August 2025, as evidenced by FIR No. 500, and that the registration had been tampered. The respondents did not dispute the theft but proceeded with a confiscation proceeding based on the liquor seizure. The High Court held that, as the owner and victim of theft, the petitioner could not be liable for penalty or confiscation of his vehicle. The court directed the petitioner to file an application under Rule 12(A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 within 30 days for release of the vehicle without any penalty, and allowed the writ application.
Issues considered
- Whether a vehicle stolen from its owner and later seized in an excise case can be subject to confiscation and penalty against the owner under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.
- Whether the petitioner, as the owner and victim of theft, is liable to pay penalty for the seized vehicle.
- Whether the confiscation proceeding initiated by the Excise Department is maintainable in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 — s. 30(a)
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12(A)
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- stolen property
- confiscation
- penalty
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- victim's rights
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5478 of 2026
======================================================
Gautam Kumar @ Gautam Kumar Singh Son of Virjeshwar Singh Resident of
Village- Achuara, P.S.- Barh, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Prohibition and Excise, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Department of Prohibition and Excise, Govt. of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Collector cum District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Saran at Chapra.
5. The S.H.O., Kopa Police Station, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rajeev Ranjan No. II, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar AC to GP-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 09-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
AC to GP-5 for the State of Bihar.
2. The petitioner in this case is seeking a direction to
the respondents to release the Scorpio vehicle bearing
Registration No. BR 01 HD1640, Engine No. YSP4D54619,
Chassis No. MA1TA2YS2P2D46682 which has been seized in
connection with Kopa PS Case No. 260 of 2025 instituted on
07.10.22025 punishable under Section 30(a) of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (as amended up to date)
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2016’).
Patna High Court CWJC No.5478 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
3. In course of hearing of the writ application, it
transpired that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the
vehicle. According to him, his vehicle was stolen away from
Achuara under the Barh Police Station for which FIR No. 500 of
2025 was lodged on 22.08.2025 vide Annexure ‘P/2’ to the writ
petition.
4. It is submitted that registration number of the stolen
vehicle was tampered by the miscreants, later on, the said
vehicle was found transporting 547.02 litres of India made
foreign liquor. It is for this reason the excise case being
Annexure ‘P/1’ has been registered, and the vehicle in question
has been seized. It has been subjected to confiscation
proceeding.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondent no. 3. In the counter affidavit, there is no denial of
the assertion made by the petitioner in the writ application. In a
very simple language, the respondents have taken a plea that the
excise case has been registered because 547.02 litres of foreign
liquor was recovered from the vehicle. Then, it has been stated
that police has submitted a requisition for confiscation and the
confiscation proceeding is pending.
6. Having regard to the entire materials available on
Patna High Court CWJC No.5478 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
the record, we can safely conclude that there is no denial of the
fact that the vehicle was stolen away as back as on 22.08.2025
for which a police case was registered. If it is so, then the
petitioner would fall in the category of a victim of crime being
owner of the vehicle. In such circumstance, the petitioner cannot
be subjected to a proceeding under which he may be held liable
to give penalty for release of the vehicle.
7. The confiscation proceeding seems to be
misconceived. It cannot go on.
8. We grant liberty to the petitioner to file an
application in the given format before the competent authority
under Rule 12 (A) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules
2021 (as amended up to date). If such an application is filed
before the competent authority/authorised officer within a
period of 30 days from today, the same will be considered at the
earliest and in no case, it should be more than 30 days from the
date of filing of the application.
9. It goes without saying that the vehicle being a
stolen vehicle, release of the same cannot be made subject to
payment of penalty. No penalty may be imposed in such cases.
The petitioner may place the entire materials and the case laws
before the competent authority/forum.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5478 of 2026(2) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
10. This writ application is allowed to the extent
indicated hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
lekhi/-praphul/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.