Seizure of a vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act requires evidence of its use in the commission of an offence; mere ownership does not suffice.

ORDER

2 10-12-2025

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025, registered for the offence punishable under Section 30 (a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act , 2022.

2. As per the allegation, two persons, who are co-accused, were riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-21Q-2509, which belongs to the petitioner and as per further case of the prosecution, the pillion rider of the motorcycle was carrying a pithubag on his back containing 6 litre illicit liquor. The FIR was lodged against the Petitioner, who was owner of the vehicle as well as two accused, who were riding the motorcycle at the time of recovery of the illicit liquor but the Petitioner was not present, nor any illicit liquor was recovered from him.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and he was no way connected with the alleged offence, nor was any occasion for the police to make the Petitioner an accused in this case. He further submits that even presumption under Section 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act , 2016 against the owner of the vehicle would arise only when the vehicle could have been used in the commission of the alleged offence under the Act, but as per the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehicle was not used in the commission of the alleged offence nor was the Petitioner/Owner riding the vehicle, nor was he present at the time of recovery of the illicit liquor from the co-accused, who was a pillion rider of the motorcycle at the relevant time. He also submits that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner had given the motorcycle to the co- accused, Amrendra Kumar for bringing some medicine for his mother who was suffering from some illness. Hence, there was no occasion for the police to implead the Petitioner as accused or seize the motorcycle, because a motorcycle is liable to be seized under the Excise Act only when it could have been used in the transportation of the illicit liquor. At most, the co-accused, who was carrying the pitthu bag on his back with illicit liquor could be prosecuted for illegal possession of illicit liquor. The seizure of the vehicle and impleadment of the Petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of learned Division Bench of this Court in (i) Sunaina Vs. State of Bihar , as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 851 and (ii) Binit Kumar Vs. State of Bihar , as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 850 in which under similar facts and circumstances, learned Division Bench clearly held that in such facts and circumstances, the motorcycle could not be deemed to be used in the commission of any offence under the Excise Act and the vehicle could not be seized or confiscated.

4. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

5. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

6. However, learned APP for the State defends the order dated 10.10.2025, passed by learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise Court-I, Nawada, passed in Anticipatory Bail Petition No.2461 of 2025, whereby learned Special Court has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and the Anticipatory Bail Petition filed by him was rightly rejected as not maintainable.

7. I