Case Background
The petitioner is the registered owner of a vehicle. On 13.05.2024, his vehicle was stolen. For this theft, he lodged Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (since repealed).
More than two months later, on 21.07.2024, the same vehicle was intercepted by the Excise authorities. It was seized in connection with Excise Patna Sadar P.S. Case No. 1716 of 2024. At that time, 220.320 litres of foreign liquor were found in the vehicle.
There is a clear finding in the record that the petitioner’s involvement was not found in the theft case. Despite this, the authorities proceeded to treat the vehicle as liable for confiscation and imposed monetary conditions for its release.
The Confiscating Authority passed an order (Annexure P/6) under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 (as amended up to date). It demanded payment of a substantial penalty and an additional percentage amount as conditions for release. The petitioner pursued his remedies through appeal and revision, but both were rejected. He then approached the Patna High Court by filing Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14985 of 2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad (for the Bench also comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey), first recalled its earlier order dated 25.11.2025. In that interim order, the Court had noted the grievance of the petitioner and directed the State to file a comprehensive counter affidavit.
The Court had earlier recorded that the confiscation, appellate and revisional authorities were fully aware of the theft case lodged by the petitioner and the absence of his involvement. Yet, they ordered that he must deposit 10% of the insured value of the vehicle by way of penalty for its release.
The petitioner’s side argued that this approach went against recent judgments of the Patna High Court. In those decisions, the Court had held that when a vehicle is stolen and later found transporting liquor, and there is no involvement of the owner, the vehicle should be released and confiscation proceedings cannot continue. The petitioner highlighted cases such as Manjeet Kumar Yadav v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 10126 of 2025) and Santosh Kumar v. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 10777 of 2025), and pointed out that departmental authorities were not following these rulings.
In the interim order, the Court also cautioned that, if it was found that authorities were acting in disregard of its judgments, it would consider initiating contempt proceedings. It directed that the vehicle should not be auctioned in the meantime, and if already auctioned, the procedure and purchaser details should be disclosed.
After the State filed counter affidavit and show cause, the matter was heard finally with assistance from the learned Advocate General and learned AAG-5. The Court also noted that during the pendency of this writ application, it had dealt with a very similar case: CWJC No. 19659 of 2025 (Bimlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Others).
In Bimlesh Kumar, the vehicle had been stolen, fitted with a false number plate and used to transport liquor. There also, the owner had lodged an FIR about the theft. The Court in that case set aside the revisional order and distinguished an earlier coordinate Bench decision in Ramprakash Paswan v. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 11678 of 2022). Instead, it relied on another coordinate Bench decision in Amarjeet Yadav v. State of Bihar and Others (CWJC No. 9517 of 2023).
The present Bench reproduced paragraphs 7–10 of its judgment in Bimlesh Kumar. In those passages, the Court stressed that the fact of theft, false number plate and interception with liquor are important. A confiscation proceeding is essentially civil in nature. The owner can be deprived of his property only when his involvement in the offence with the help of the vehicle is found.
The Court quoted paragraph 24 of Amarjeet Yadav, which had clearly stated that if a vehicle is stolen or robbed by criminals to carry liquor, the owner cannot be punished through seizure and confiscation. Such illegal use by criminals does not show involvement or connivance of the owner.
The Bench then looked at the amendments to the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021. After the decision in Ramprakash Paswan, the Rules had been amended by the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023, notified on 31.05.2023. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 12A now provides guidelines for imposing fine where valuation or insurance is not possible and requires the authority to consider:
the economic status of the individual,
the nature of his involvement in the crime, and
the quantum of intoxicant recovered.
The Court observed that these factors apply generally when imposing penalty under Rule 12A. Whether the penalty is based on insured value or valuation is immaterial. What matters is that the authority must consider the nature of involvement of the vehicle owner. This is an important guiding factor and cannot be ignored.
Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court noted that the theft FIR (Patrakar Nagar P.S. Case No. 233 of 2024) was lodged on 13.05.2024, and liquor was found in the vehicle on 21.07.2024, more than two months later. There was a clear finding that the petitioner was not involved in the theft. Despite this, the Confiscating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,44,339/- for release of the vehicle under Rule 12A. It further directed deposit of 3% of the penalty amount, i.e., Rs. 4,331/-, into the Punjab National Bank account of Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited (BSBCL). The order threatened auction of the vehicle if the full amount was not deposited within fifteen days.
The petitioner’s appeal against this order was dismissed on 18.02.2025 by the Appellate Authority, despite his plea that it was unfair to impose penalty when his vehicle had been stolen. His revision before the Secretary (Prohibition and Excise) was also dismissed on 19.06.2025 (Annexure P/9). The Revisional Authority accepted that the theft case existed and that the petitioner’s involvement was not found, yet held that because the vehicle was found carrying liquor, release could only be on payment of penalty.
The High Court found that the reasoning of the Revisional Authority in this case was the same as that rejected in Bimlesh Kumar. The Bench recorded appreciation for the stand of the learned Advocate General and learned AAG-5, who submitted that there cannot be a law which does not appeal to the conscience of the people, and that where a stolen vehicle is later found with liquor but the owner is not involved, the owner should not suffer penalty for release.
The Court reiterated its view from Bimlesh Kumar. In light of the revisional order’s own finding that the petitioner was not involved in the theft of the vehicle, it held that no penalty can be imposed as a condition for release.
On the separate question of the 3% imposition in favour of BSBCL, the Advocate General and AAG-5 conceded that there was no sanction of law for such a levy. The Court agreed, relying on its earlier reasoning in paragraph 12 of Bimlesh Kumar, where it had held that the confiscating authority has no power to impose an additional 3% over and above the penalty amount and cannot direct deposit in the account of a government company. Such an imposition was described as wholly unjust, improper, and an act of undue enrichment, which is not permissible.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the impugned confiscation, appellate and revisional orders could not stand. It stressed that the petitioner falls in the category of a victim whose property was stolen and over which he had no control. To punish such a person by imposing penalty for release of the vehicle would be contrary to law and justice.
However, the Court carefully added a caveat. It clarified that where there is any involvement of the vehicle owner, either in the alleged theft or in the transportation of liquor, the authorities are fully empowered to impose penalty under Rule 12A, provided there are sufficient materials on record to show prima facie involvement.
Finally, the Court set aside the impugned orders (Annexures P/6, P/8 and P/9) and allowed the writ petition. It directed the District Magistrate, Patna, to pass an order within one week from receipt of the judgment for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, on his producing ownership documents, and specifically ordered that this must be done without any penalty.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for vehicle owners in Bihar, especially those whose vehicles may be stolen and misused for carrying liquor under the prohibition regime.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that a victim of theft cannot be forced to pay heavy penalties simply because his stolen vehicle was later found transporting liquor. Before imposing any penalty under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, authorities must examine whether the owner had any involvement.
The Court has also strongly discouraged unauthorised financial demands, like the 3% additional amount directed to be deposited in the account of BSBCL. Such amounts have been held to be without legal backing and an impermissible undue enrichment.
For ordinary citizens, this ruling provides assurance that genuine victims of theft will not be treated like offenders, and that departmental authorities must act within the limits of the law as clarified by the Patna High Court.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the State authorities impose penalty under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 for release of a vehicle which was stolen, when there is no finding of involvement of the owner in the offence?
Answer: No. Where the vehicle was stolen and there is no involvement of the owner, no penalty may be imposed as a condition for release. The owner is to be treated as a victim, not an offender. -
Issue: Do confiscation authorities have power to impose an additional 3% amount over and above penalty and direct deposit of that amount in the account of BSBCL?
Answer: No. Such imposition has no sanction of law. The confiscating authority has no power to levy this extra 3% or to direct deposit in the account of BSBCL; such orders amount to unjust and improper undue enrichment. -
Issue: What factors must be considered under Rule 12A(4) when imposing fine or penalty in liquor-related vehicle seizure cases?
Answer: Authorities must consider the economic status of the individual, the nature of his involvement in the crime, and the quantum of intoxicant recovered. The nature of the owner’s involvement is an important guiding factor and cannot be ignored.
Cases Cited by the Court
- CWJC No. 19659 of 2025, Bimlesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others
- CWJC No. 11678 of 2022, Ramprakash Paswan v. The State of Bihar and Others
- CWJC No. 9517 of 2023, Amarjeet Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Others
- CWJC No. 10126 of 2025, Manjeet Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar and Others
- CWJC No. 10777 of 2025, Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others
- CWJC No. 18561 of 2025, Shantanu Kumar v. The State of Bihar and Others
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14985 of 2025
Case Title: Prasant Kishore Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 539
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Raju Giri (Senior Advocate), Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Mr. Harsh Raj, Mr. Chetan Anand
Advocates for the State: Mr. P.K. Shahi (Advocate General), Mr. S. Raza Ahmad (AAG-5), Mr. Alok Ranjan (AC to AAG-5)
Date of Judgment: 22.12.2025
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging confiscation-related orders and penalty imposed for release of vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021
Link to the Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
