The court emphasized the need for expeditious release of seized vehicles to prevent deterioration and resource wastage, aligning with Supreme Court precedents.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 11-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“1) That, the instant writ application filed for directing to concerned respondent authorities to release the stolen vehicle (Hero Splendor Motorcycle) bearing registration number BR26V7086, Chesis No. MBLHAW123NHD53508, Engine No.- HA11EDNHD88227 which has been stolen by unknown person, for which Dev P.S. Case No.-102/2025 dt. 22/04/2025, registered u/s

303(2) Bhartiya Nayay Sahita thereafter the same vehcile (sic.) seized by the police officials of Banke Bazar police station and a case was registered Banke Bazar P.S. Case No.-61/2025 dt. 11/05/2025 u/s 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition of Excise (Amendment) Act. The same vehicle is laying in the open yard resulting decay and causing financial lost to the petitioner.

ii) For issuance any other relief / reliefs which the Hon'ble Court may be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.05.2025, the police received secret information about a person carrying country made mahua liquor on a motorcycle. A trap was laid and on seeing the police party, the rider fled away leaving behind his motorcycle and a bag which he had been carrying on the motorcycle. From the bag, recovery of 70 liters of country made mahua liquor was made. The motorcycle was also seized and Banke Bazar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025 was registered on 11.05.2025 against the driver and owner of the said motorcycle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.-BR26V7086. The petitioner claims that his motorcycle had been stolen on 20.04.2025 and Dev P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 has been lodged under Sections 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 prior to the institution of FIR in the instant case. Learned counsel further submits that time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court issued guidelines about release of vehicle considering the fact that leaving the vehicles to rot and become junk in the police stations results in wastage of resources and adds to national loss. Learned counsel further submits that the vehicle of the petitioner is kept in open sky and the efficiency of the vehicle is deteriorating day by day. Learned counsel further submits that no confiscation proceeding has been started in the present case.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioner submitting that the vehicle of the petitioner was involved in illicit trade of liquor.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission of the parties and perused the record. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 has observed the following:

“In our view, the powers under Section 451, Cr PC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:-

1. Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail;

and

4. This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.