Patna High Court
Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The penalty and seizure stand as there was no satisfactory proof of theft, and the writ seeking release and refund is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Santosh Yadav, sought the release of his seized Hero Spender Plus motorcycle, a refund of a Rs.8,387 fine, and compensation, claiming the vehicle had been stolen on 09‑07‑2024 and that the confiscating authority ignored a police diary entry. The vehicle was seized under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016 (as amended), after whisky was recovered from occupants. The petitioner deposited the fine and obtained a release order, but the vehicle remained unreleased. He argued that the penalty was illegal because the vehicle was stolen, citing a diary entry at Palamu Town Police Station, but no FIR or written notice was filed with the confiscating authority. The State contended that the theft claim was never formally communicated and that the diary entry alone was insufficient. The Court held that the diary entry did not inspire confidence, the petitioner failed to approach senior police as required by Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), and there was no material proving theft. Consequently, the penalty was deemed lawful and the writ dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure and imposition of penalty under the Bihar Excise Prohibition Act can be set aside on the ground that the vehicle was allegedly stolen but no FIR or written notice was filed.
- Whether the court can compel the release of the vehicle and refund of the fine in the absence of satisfactory proof of theft.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Excise Prohibition Act, 2016 (as amended) — s. 30(a), 32(3)
- Bihar Prohibition Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended) — s. Rule 12A
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 154(3)
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- excise law
- penalty
- theft allegation
- writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Excise Prohibition Act
- procedural default
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6439 of 2026
======================================================
Santosh Yadav @ Santosh Kumar Yadav Son of Budhan Yadav @ Rajdev
Yadav Resident of Village Daebra, PS Lesaliganj, District Palamu
(Jharkhand).
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, New
Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar).
4. The Additional Collector, Excise Court no 2, Aurangabad (Bihar).
5. The Superintendent of Excise, Aurangabad (Bihar).
6. The Officer Incharge, Excise, PS Aurangabad, PO and PS Aurangabad
(Bihar).
7. The Officer-In-Charge, Palamu Town Police Station, PO and PS and District
Palamu (Jharkhand).
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, AC to AAG-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
2 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner in this writ application is seeking the
following reliefs:-
“(a) For a direction to the respondents
authorities to release Hero Spender Plus
Motorcycle bearing its Registration No.
JH03AE-8386, Chassis no.
MBLHAW125MHF01611, Engine No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6439 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/5
HA11EDMHF01324 in favour of petitioner
which has been seized in connection with
Aurangabad Excise P.S. Case no. 617/25
registered under section- 30(a), 32(3) of the
Bihar Excise Prohibition Amended Act- 2018 by
the respondents authorities without committing
any offence by the petitioner, and refund his
amount of fine of Rs. 8387.00 which has been
taken from petitioner illegally in Confiscation
Case no. 208/25.
(b) For a direction to the respondent authorities
to pay compensation to the petitioner because in
spite of the release order dated 24/12/25 passed
by Additional Collector-cum-Competent
Authority passed in Confiscation Case no.
208/25 vehicle was not released.
(c) For a direction to the Respondent authorities
to take a legal action against the erring office
who has not released his vehicle at compelled to
petitioner for depositing of fine amount of Rs.
8387.00 alongwith other amount.
(d) For any other order/ orders as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper.”
3. From the averments made in the writ application, it
appears that the vehicle in question has been seized in
connection with Aurangabad Excise P.S. Case No. 617 of 2025
registered under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise
and Prohibition Act, 2016 (as amended upto date), the two
persons who were present on the vehicle were searched and
from their possession total 770 ml Imperial Blue Blended Grain
Patna High Court CWJC No.6439 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/5
Whisky was recovered from the bag.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
vehicle in question was stolen away by unknown persons on
09.07.2024 and in this regard, an information was given to the
Palamu Town Police Station which was recorded by S.D.E. No.
27 of 2024 dated 19.07.2024. It is submitted that the
information regarding the sanha diary entry made in the Palamu
Town Police Station was given to the confiscating authority at
the time of seeking release of the vehicle in terms of Rule 12A
of the Bihar Prohibition Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended upto
date) but the confiscating authority did not take note of it and
proceeded to pass order as contained in Memo No. 487 dated
10.10.2025 (Annexure ‘P/5’). The confiscating authority has
imposed penalty of Rs. 8,639/- for purpose of release of the
vehicle.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has deposited the amount vide receipt (Annexure
‘P/6’) and the vehicle was ordered to be released but till date the
vehicle has not been released. At this stage, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the vehicle has already been released
in favour of the petitioner.
6. It is his submission that imposition of penalty in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6439 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
4/5
this case is neither legal nor justified because the vehicle had
been stolen away and in this regard, there was an information in
the Palamu Town Police Station.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State,
submits that the fact that the vehicle was stolen was never
brought to the notice of the confiscating authority. No written
information/application was filed in this regard before the
confiscating authority, rather the petitioner agreed to deposit the
penalty amount and gave an undertaking that he will not claim
refund of the same in future.
8. It is further submitted that the sanha diary entry
alone would not inspire confidence. There is nothing on the
record to show that after giving information to Palamu Town
Police Station on 09.07.2024 when the FIR was not registered
why the petitioner maintained a silence and did not lodge any
complaint with the senior police officers in terms of Section
154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 173(4)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) for lodging of the
FIR. In such circumstance, this Court sitting in its writ
jurisdiction may not consider a plea which apparently seems to
be an afterthought.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6439 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
5/5
learned counsel for the State, we agree with the submissions
advanced on behalf of the State. The sanha diary entry alone
would not inspire confidence of the Court. This has also to be
seen in the light of the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in
not approaching the senior police officers in accordance with
law for purpose of registration of FIR and investigation of theft.
Inaction on the part of the petitioner would prove fatal to him.
The Palamu Town Police Station has not conducted any
investigation because no FIR was lodged in the matter and there
is no report that the occurrence of theft is true.
10. Further, this Court finds that on record there is no
material to show that before the confiscating authority the
petitioner had filed any written information saying that the
vehicle in question is a stolen vehicle. We, therefore, decline to
subscribe the plea of the petitioner that no penalty could have
been imposed for the purpose of release of his vehicle.
11. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Rishi/Ritesh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.