JUDGMENT :

MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.02.2025 passed in Excise Confiscation Case No.656 of 2024 by the learned Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition, Gaya whereby and whereunder the Splendor motorcycle of the petitioner bearing registration No. BR26S-7652, Chassis No. MBLHAW110LHG10130, Engine No. HA11EVLHG10049 has been directed to be confiscated in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that his motorcycle bearing registration No. BR26S-7652 was snatched on 05.12.2023 by two unknown miscreants leading to the petitioner having filed an FIR bearing Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 723 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that subsequently the police force, while on patrolling duty as also while they were checking vehicles, had apprehended four motorcycles carrying 150 liters of illicit liquor each in sacks and during the course thereof one of the motorcycles bearing same chassis number and engine number as that of the motorcycle of the petitioner was also seized. This led to lodging of an FIR bearing Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 dated 30.03.2024, registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2018’), whereafter confiscation proceedings were initiated vide Excise Confiscation Case No.656 of 2024 and ultimately the learned Court of Assistant Commissioner, Prohibition, Gaya passed an order dated 07.02.2025 confiscating the aforesaid vehicle of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the motorcycle of the petitioner had been stolen much earlier than the day the same was seized by the police in connection with excise case as also the name of the petitioner does not find place in the FIR bearing Sindhugarh P.S. Case No.14 of 2024 lodged U/s. 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, 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.

4. It is further 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 the illicit liquor has also not been proved. Thus, it is submitted by relying on a judgment dated 30.01.2024, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunaina vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online Pat 851 and the one dated 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 transporting of illicit liquor and any such illegal use of the vehicle, the vehicle cannot be subjected to a confiscation proceeding.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 07.02.2025, however he has not been able to deny the fact that the motorcycle in question was stolen/snatched much before it was seized in connection with the Excise Act case. 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 150 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.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record from which it is apparent that the petitioner had filed an FIR bearing Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 723 of 2023 dated 06.12.2023 under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with theft of his motorcycle