Pradip Yadav v. The State Of Bihar, Through Commissioner, Excise, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1439 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SAHARSA =========================================================== Pradip Yadav, Son of Shri Rajendra Yadav, Resident of Simri Tola Pukharichak, Hindupur, Ward No. 17, P.S. - Bakhtiarpur, District - Saharsa .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner, Excise, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Collector, Saharsa

3. The Superintendent of Police, Saharsa

4. The Officer-in-Charge of Saharsa Police Station, Saharsa

5. The Superintendent of Excise, Saharsa .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, G.A.1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-09-2017 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

This writ application is directed against the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the Collector, Saharsa in connection with Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 09 of 2017-18 vide Annexure-4 whereby the Collector has refused to release the seized Scorpio vehicle bearing registration no. BR-11H-9908. The said vehicle was seized in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 167 of 2017 registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016. The Collector has confiscated the said vehicle.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the issue whether the Executive Authority can exercise the power of confiscation, which is exercisable by a Judicial Authority, is under sub judice in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2015 (Baleshwar Roy vs. The State of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1439 of 2017 dt.07-09-2017 2 /2 & Ors.) and, hence, the operation of the impugned order be stayed and the vehicle be released, by way of ad interim custody, in favour of the petitioner as no purpose is going to be served by its continued detention. I find substance in the submission aforesaid, hence, proceeding of the confiscation case aforesaid including the operation of the impugned order is directed to remain in abeyance till disposal of the above referred L.P.A. The proceeding shall be subject to the result of the L.P.A. aforesaid.

Since, no purpose is going to be served by keeping the Scorpio in seizure, let the same be released in favour of the petitioner, who claims to be owner thereof, by way of ad interim custody on execution of surety bond of Rs.8,00,000/- (rupees eight lakhs) (not in the form of bank guarantee or cash) along with two sureties of the like amount with condition that the petitioner shall not dispose of the same without permission of the Court and shall produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court.

With the aforesaid observation, this writ application stands disposed of.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 09.09.2017 Transmission Date 09.09.2017