Bindeshwari Yadav @ Bindeshwari Singh v. The State Of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government Of Bihar, Old Secret
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1549 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- AURANGABAD ===========================================================
1. Bindeshwari Yadav @ Bindeshwari Singh S/o Sri Ramdev Singh R/o VillageSasna, P.S.-Narari Kala, District-Aurangabad (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, Through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad (Bihar)
3. The Superident of Police, Aurangabad(Bihar).
4. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad (Bihar)
5. The S.H.O. Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad (Bihar). .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Bahadur Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court to quash the order dated 04.03.2017 passed in connection with Excise Confiscation Case No.138 of 2016 by the Collector, Aurangabad, under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. By the said order the prayer of the petitioner to release the seized vehicle, i.e., Bajaj Discover motorcycle bearing Chassis No.MD2A15BZXGRA73972, has been refused and the referred vehicle has been confiscated.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1549 of 2017 dt.14-09-2017 P3/2 that the jurisdiction of the Executive Officer to confiscate the vehicle 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 by way of ad interim custody on execution of surety bond of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand), not in the form of cash/Bank
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1549 of 2017 dt.14-09-2017 P3/3 Guarantee, along with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned authority 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.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.09.2017 Transmission Date 19.09.2017