Bimlesh Kumar S/o Braj Nandan Sharma Vs State of Bihar (Patna High Court)
The Patna High Court heard a writ petition seeking release of a seized vehicle, an Innova Crysta car, in connection with an excise case registered on 03.03.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 30(a) and 56(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 as amended. The vehicle was allegedly found carrying about 198.720 litres of liquor. The petitioner challenged the revisional order which had declined to interfere with the confiscation and appellate orders passed by the excise authorities. Although the confiscating authority had directed release of the vehicle on payment of 10% of the insured value plus an additional 3%, the petitioner contended that his vehicle had been stolen prior to the incident and that he had lodged an FIR in October 2024 reporting the theft. He further asserted that the vehicle number plate had been changed by the person who stole it and that he had no involvement in the alleged offence.
The State argued that the penalty of 10% of the insured value was justified due to the quantity of liquor recovered, but conceded that there was no authority to impose an additional 3% amount. On examining the record, the Court noted that even the revisional authority had acknowledged that the vehicle was stolen and that the petitioner had no involvement in the offence. The Court observed that confiscation proceedings are civil in nature and that a vehicle owner can be deprived of property only if his involvement or connivance in the offence is established. It held that the fact of theft and use of a false number plate were crucial and could not be ignored.
