IMPORTANT POINT
Confiscation of property requires evidence of owner's involvement in the crime; lack thereof violates fundamental rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.01.2024, passed by the learned Court of Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj in Sub-Divisional Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 1047 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the motorcycle of the petitioner bearing registration No. N/A, Chassis No. MBLHAR071JHL13627 and Engine No. HAI0AGJHLB2192, has been directed to be confiscated and put on auction sale.

2. The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that his motorcycle bearing Registration No.BR05AE-7596 (Hero Splendor+) having the same chassis and engine number, as aforesaid was stolen in the evening of 09.05.2022 from Puran Chapra Market, leading to him having lodged an FIR for theft of his motorcycle bearing Chakiya P.S. Case No.180 of 2022 dated 10.05.2022, registered under Section 379 of the IPC . The petitioner, subsequently came to know that the said motorcycle has been seized in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 470 of 2023 dt. 15.09.2023, registered under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2016”) against four accused persons on account of recovery of various quantity of illicit liquor, however from the motorcycle of the petitioner, 11.160 liters of illicit liquor was seized. The confiscation authority had then initiated confiscation proceedings, leading to passing of the impugned order dated 05.01.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the motorcycle of the petitioner had been stolen much earlier than the day on which the same was seized by the police in connection with excise act case as also the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR bearing Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.470 of 2023, lodged U/s. 30(a) of the Act, 2016, it cannot be said that either there was consent of the petitioner or connivance of the owner of the motorcycle in question, i.e. the petitioner in commission of the offence. It is also submitted that the records would bear it out that the involvement of the petitioner in the illegal use of the motorcycle in question for ferrying illicit liquor has also not been proved. Thus, it is submitted by relying on judgments dated 30.01.2024, passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in2024 SCC Online Pat 851 and the one dt. 18.11.2025, passed in the case of Ali Ashraf Siddique vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.16421 of 2025) that if the involvement of the owner of the vehicle is not there in commission of the alleged offence of transportation of illicit liquor and in such illegal use of the vehicle, the vehicle cannot be subjected to a confiscation proceeding.

4. Per contra, though the learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 05.01.2024, however he has not been able to deny the fact that since the ownership of the motorcycle in question could not be ascertained, the notice of hearing could not be served upon the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has also not been able to show any proof of involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence of recovery of 11.160 liters of illicit liquor from the motorcycle in question and moreover, in the counter affidavit filed in the present case there is no material to show any direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner/owner of the vehicle in commission of the alleged offence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent tha