Bablu Sahni v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1742 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- BEGUSARAI ===========================================================
1. Bablu Sahni, Son of Fulena Sahni @ Suresh Sahni, Resident of VillageParihara, Sohagi Sonavarsha, P.S. Bakhri, District-Begusarai. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, Excise, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Collector, Begusarai.
4. The Superintendent of Excise Begusarai
5. The Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Bakhri (Parihara), Begusarai. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Randhir Kumar No.I, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, GA-1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing of Confiscation Case No.154 of 2017, arising out of Bakhri (Parihara) P.S. Case No.259 of 2016, by the Collector, Begusarai, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. In the said proceeding the prayer of the petitioner to release the seized vehicle, i.e., motorcycle bearing registration No.BR-09U/1263, has been refused and the referred vehicle has been confiscated.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the jurisdiction of the Executive Officer to confiscate the vehicle
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1742 of 2017 dt.11-10-2017 P3/ is subjudice before a larger Bench of this Court in LPA No.1647 of 2015 Baleshwar Roy V. The State of Bihar & Ors. In the circumstances, till pendency of the L.P.A. aforesaid operation of the impugned order be stayed and the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner as no purpose is going to be served by its continued detention in police lockup.
4. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer on the ground that the authorities are competent under the provisions of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2106, to confiscate. Hence, the petitioner cannot get interim relief of release of the vehicle.
5. Considering the fact that authority of the executive to confiscate the seized vehicle under the Excise Act and other provisions is under consideration before a larger Bench of this Court as referred above, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till further order and shall be subject to the result of L.P.A. aforesaid.
6. Since no purpose is going to be served by continued detention of the vehicle, let the same be released in favour of the petitioner or his wife as the said motorcycle is in the name of the wife of the petitioner by way of ad interim custody on execution of surety bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand), not in the form of
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1742 of 2017 dt.11-10-2017 P3/ cash/Bank Guarantee, along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Collector, Begusarai, with condition that the petitioner would not dispose of the said vehicle without permission of the authority concerned and shall produce as and when required by the Court.
7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application stands disposed of.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.10.2017 Transmission Date 13.10.2017