The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for the State to initiate/confiscate proceedings within a reasonable time and the lack of a mechanism for protecting seized property.

ORDER :

Sanjay Karol, J.

It is seen that despite our order dated 9th of January, 2020, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 926 titled as Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., and the order dated th of January, 2020 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17165 of 2019, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 931 titled as Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., the State has not initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. It is a matter of record that this legislation has generated huge litigation. The docket of the Court, be it the trial court or the High Court, is now choked solely on account of such legislation. In the High Court itself, on an average, 400 bail applications are being filed every day, some of which are pertaining to the said Statute. Position in the lower courts is worse. Before the trial courts, i.e. the Sessions Courts, more than 1,75,000 challans stand filed in relation to the said Statute. Before this Court, on an average, more than 5000 writ petitions are being filed annually for release of vehicles/properties seized under the said Act. It has been the continued practice of this Court, since the year 2017, that in the writ petitions the vehicles, unless the situation so warrants, are normally being released subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. This, perhaps, is done only to protect the property from being destroyed, for there is no mechanism under the Statute or with the administration for protecting the property seized in relation to the crime registered under the said Statute. Property is left to the vagaries of weather, resulting into national loss. This we say for the reason that proceedings for confiscation, as envisaged under Section 58, were never initiated by the authority, which under the Act is the District Magistrate/Collector. It is only as a result of inaction on the part of such authorities that the owners of the vehicles/properties are constrained to approach this Court for its release. When the matter in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019, Reported in 2020 (3) PLJR 926 (Md. Shaukat Ali Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and in 17165 of 2019(Umesh Sah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (supra) was taken up for hearing, the State vehemently opposed the release of the vehicle and, as such, the following orders were passed:

-(in C.W.J.C. No. 20598 of 2019, order dated 9.1.2020)

“The petition filed on 01.10.2019 is listed for hearing for the first time today before the Court.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms.

The petitioner prays for provisional release of Tata Indigo white vehicle bearing Registration No. BR 01CX 1796 which has been seized in connection with Kotwali P. S. Case No. 721 of 2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 427/279 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(b) (c) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

It is continued practice of this Court that in cases of drunken driving; no recovery from the vehicle; recovery of less than commercial quantity; where ex-facie, vehicle is not liable to be confiscated; where there is inordinate delay in initiating proceedings for confiscation of the vehicle etc., this Court has been directing the State to provisionally release vehicle/property, subject to initiation/conclusion/finalisation of the confiscatory proceedings, as the case may be. Reference can be made to the judgments/ orders passed by different co-ordinate Benches of this Court, viz:-

(i) Judgment dated 22.03.2018 passed in CWJC No.5049 of 2018, Reported in 2018 (3) PLJR 403 titled as Diwakar Kumar Singh versus The State of Bihar & Ors.;

(ii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC No.13162 of 2018, Reported in 2019 (1) PLJR 545 titled as Rajesh Kumar Pandit @ Rajesh Pandit Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.;

(iii) order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CWJC No.1424