Rinkesh Kumar @ Rikesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate, Madhepura And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1172 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- MADHEPURA ===========================================================

1. Rinkesh Kumar @ Rikesh Kumar, Son of Arvind Kumar Yadav, Resident of Baipass Road, Bhirkhi, Ward No. 21, P.S. & District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Madhepura.

2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Madhepura.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Madhepura.

4. The Excise Superintendent, Madhepura.

5. The Station House Officer, Madhepura Police Station, District- Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Pulsar motorcycle of this petitioner, bearing registration No.BR-43J-0864, was seized in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No.182 of 2017, Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

By the impugned order dated 13.06.2017, passed in Confiscation Case No.17 of 2017, the District Magistrate-cumCollector, Madhepura, refused to release the referred motorcycle in favour of the petitioner and after confiscation directed the Superintendent of Excise, Madhepura, for auction of the referred

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1172 of 2017 dt.01-08-2017 2/3 motorcycle.

Submission of the petitioner is that the issue as to whether the Collector has authority to confiscate and auction the vehicle, which is a judicial function, is subjudice before a larger Bench of this Court in LPA No.1647 of 2015 and considering the pendency of the aforesaid LPA in other matters different Division Benches of this Court have ordered for interim release of the vehicle in favour of the owner.

Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection in interim release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, his submission is that release would be subject to the result of the L.P.A. and the pending confiscation proceeding.

Considering the facts and circumstances above, let the aforesaid vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner after verification of the ownership of the vehicle 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 cash/Bank Guarantee, along with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the authority concerned with condition that the petitioner shall not dispose of the said vehicle without permission of the authority concerned and shall produce as and when required by the Court. Further proceeding of Confiscation (Excise) Case No.17 of 2017, arising out of Madhepura

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1172 of 2017 dt.01-08-2017 3/3 P.S. Case No.182 of 2017, shall remain stayed till disposal of the L.P.A aforesaid and shall be subject to the result of the L.P.A. aforesaid.

The petitioner shall file undertaking that he will not use the vehicle for such purpose in future.

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

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 03.08.2017 Transmission Date 03.08.2017