Satyavrat Verma, J. – The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Patna, Bihar is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whenever any case under the Excise Act is instituted, the police and the excise official in a mechanical manner investigate. It is further submitted that petitioner is an old lady, aged about 80 years and is a Doctorate in English and has served as a Professor in English at the University College of Arts and Commerce, Calcutta University, for about 18 years prior to her superannuation from service in the year 2007. It is next submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is also a Doctorate in English from Oxford University and is presently employed with Oxford University Press at Oxford, United Kingdom and the son of the petitioner is a Senior Central Government Counsel and is practicing Advocate of the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta for the last 25 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid submission has been made only to bring to the notice of the Court that petitioner is a respectable lady and it cannot be fathomed that she was indulging in illegal liquor trade. Learned counsel next draws the attention of the Court to an order dated 19.12.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84442 of 2019 (Mahesh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar) to submit that Mahesh Yadav was arrested in Complaint Case No. 214(O) of 2019 (CIS Excise No. 1207 of 2019) registered for the offence under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 in which the petitioner is also an accused. It is next submitted that this Court while granting bail to Mahesh Yadav by order dated 19.12.2019 had recorded “Keeping in view the provisions of the special enactment i.e. Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. Possibility of false implication as is so alleged by the petitioner cannot be ruled out. Also, thus far save and except for naming the petitioner in the F.I.R., no evidence corroborative in nature stands recorded by the police. Also, none has come forward to highlight the possible involvement of the petitioner (Mahesh Yadav) in the crime. On what basis the Investigating Officer could link the accused to the crime is also not emanating from the record.”

5. Learned counsel thus submits that petitioner in the same manner has been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the aforesaid complaint case was instituted by the Excise Officials alleging that 137.85 litres of illicit liquor was recovered from the Dickey of a car. It is next submitted that petitioner being owner of the vehicle, which was seized in the occurrence, came to be implicated. It is further submitted that the petitioner had sold the said vehicle to a dealer of vehicle, namely, M/s Bagaria Motors Pvt. Ltd. on 27.10.2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the car was sold to the dealer in exchange for a new Renault Kwid Car which was registered in the name of the petitioner having registration no. WB-02-AL9838 and the sale value of the seized vehicle was duly adjusted by the said dealer against the price of the new car.

7. Learned counsel next asserts and submits that while handing over possession of the seized car to the said dealer, the petitioner had also handed over the duly signed and executed Form 29 and Form 30 as provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the dealer handed over a Delivery Note to the petitioner while taking possession of the said car.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that when the petitioner came to know that she has been falsely implicated in the present case on the ground that the seized vehicle belongs to her, she filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court being WPA No. 9338 of 2023 seekin