Patna High Court: Section 60 Bar Under Bihar Prohibition Act Doesn’t Restrict High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction; Orders Release Of Seized Vehicle After Police Find No Involvement
Deeskhitha Sharmile
The Patna High Court Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha held that while Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act bars the Special Excise Court from releasing vehicles seized for alleged use in an excise offence, this bar does not restrict the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court noted that the investigating authorities later found the vehicle uninvolved and attributed the recovery to a false implication. Observing that the continued detention of the vehicle lacked basis, the Court directed its release to the registered owner, subject to conditions to be fixed by the competent court.
The matter concerned the seizure of a motorcycle belonging to the petitioner in connection with allegations under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. The police initially recovered 1.08 litres of foreign liquor from a bag hanging on the petitioner’s motorcycle, which was found abandoned in a maize field. Based on this recovery, the vehicle was seized.
During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had an altercation with another individual, who allegedly placed the liquor on the petitioner’s motorcycle to falsely implicate him. The police later submitted before the trial court that the motorcycle was not involved in the offence and that the case was found true against another person and his motorcycle.
The petitioner sought release of his vehicle, but the trial court rejected the application citing the bar under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, which restricts courts from passing orders regarding property seized under the Act. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking release of the motorcycle and compensation for its seizure. The State’s counsel submitted that if the vehicle was not involved, its release could be considered.
The High Court recorded that the trial court declined release of the vehicle solely on the basis of Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. While examining this provision, the Court stated that “the language of Section 60 makes it clear that when liquor, material, still, utensil, implements or apparatus or any receptacle, package, any animal cart, vessel, or other conveyance used in committing any offence, is seized or detained under the Excise Act, then only the court would have no jurisdiction to make any order with regard to such property.” It further noted that “when the investigating authorities have themselves submitted before the court concerned that the vehicle was not involved in the occurrence, there was no occasion for it being seized or detained under the Excise Act.”
The Court recorded the police findings regarding the motorcycle’s non-involvement, noting that “the matter was investigated into and subsequently, police came to know… that Golu Kumar in order to implicate the petitioner placed the liquor on the motorcycle of the petitioner.” It added that “evidently, the vehicle of the petitioner is not liable for seizure or confiscation by the authorities considering the fact that its involvement was ruled out in police investigation.”
It was further recorded: “Even if the vehicle is not liable for confiscation then the Special Judge under the Act in view of the bar under Section 60 of the Act does not have the jurisdiction to direct for the release of the vehicle. However, such bar will not operate in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, since such power is required to be exercised in the given prevailing monstrous situation.”
The High Court recorded that the statutory bar does not extend to writ jurisdiction, noting that “despite provisions for bar of jurisdiction of any Court in any statute, writ jurisdiction of High Court is not ousted.”
The Court directed: “Having regard to the position of law and the peculiar facts and circumstances giving rise to the present anomalous situation, this Court thinks it fit and proper to exercise its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and order for release of vehicle bearing registration no.BR-09AW-3244 in favour of its registered owner forthwith subject to the condition to be imposed by the court concerned. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ritik Shah, Advocate
Case Title: Karnal Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case Number: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2364 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Jha
