Jyoti Shankar @ Jyoti Shankar Singh v. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Excise Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1695 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- BEGUSARAI =========================================================== Jyoti Shankar @ Jyoti Shankar Singh, Son of Ram Sagar Singh, Resident of Village - Naya Tola, Bajitpur, P.S. Muffasil, District - Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai.

3. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai.

4. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Begusarai.

5. The S.D.O. Begusarai.

6. The Excise Superintendent, Begusarai.

7. The S.H.O. Begusarai town police Station, Begusarai. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-10-2017 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

This writ application is directed against the order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Confiscation Case No. 13 of 2017 vide Annexure-3 whereby the Collector has refused to release the seized Black Colour Passion Pro Motorcycle vehicle bearing registration no. BR-09K-1507. The said vehicle was seized in connection with Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 18 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

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1695 of 2017 dt.04-10-2017 2 /2 judice in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2015 (Baleshwar Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). In the circumstances, 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, proceeding of the confiscation case aforesaid including the operation of 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 motorcycle 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.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) (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 07.10.2017 Transmission Date 07.10.2017