Patna High Court
Ranjan Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The Court held that the competent authority must consider the petition for release and impose only the minimum penalty due to the low quantity of liquor recovered.
Summary
Petitioner Ranjan Prasad Singh filed a writ petition seeking the release of a vehicle seized by excise authorities on the grounds that only a small quantity (1.80 litres) of liquor was recovered. The petitioner had already submitted an application for release to the competent authority. The Court examined Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, noting that the low quantity warrants the minimum penalty prescribed. It directed the competent authority to consider the pending application and pass an order for release within 30 days, imposing only the minimum penalty. The writ application was disposed accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules should be released given the minimal quantity of liquor recovered
- Whether the penalty to be imposed should be the minimum prescribed under Rule 12A
Legislation cited
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 — s. Rule 12A
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- liquor excise
- Rule 12A
- minimum penalty
- writ jurisdiction
- release of seized property
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5861 of 2026
======================================================
Ranjan Prasad Singh Son of Late Dinesh Pd. Singh, Resident of village
Shivdhari Bhawan, Jagat Narayan Road, P.S.- Kadam kuan, District - Patna,
State - Bihar- 800003.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Excise and Prohibition
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Excise Commissioner of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate Cum Collector, Lakhisarai.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.
6. The Superintendent of Excise, Lakhisarai.
7. The Investigating Officer of Piribazar, P.S. case No. - 31/2026.
8. The S.H.O., Piribazar, Police Station, Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arnav Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Shreya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar Bharti, Advocate
Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadim Seraj, GP 5
Mr. Shailesh 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 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has already filed an application in the prescribed
format for release of the vehicle in question before the
competent authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5861 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026
2/2
3. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court
directs the competent authority before whom the application
seeking release of the vehicle is pending to consider the same
and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible and in
no case later than a period of 30 days from the date of
production of a copy of this order.
4. One of the factors to be considered for purpose of
release of the vehicle in terms of Rule 12A of the Bihar
Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (As Amended Uptodate) is
the quantum of liquor recovered. In this case, we have noticed
that only 1.80 litre of liquor is said to have been recovered.
Thus, the competent authority shall consider the very low
quantity of liquor and shall impose a penalty which would be
the minimum prescribed under the statute.
5. The writ application is disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Kumar Manish, J)
Ranjeet/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.