Meghnath Sahni v. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Bihar, Patna And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1402 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SHEOHAR ===========================================================

1. Meghnath Sahni Son of Asharfi Sahni, R/o Village- Mathanapur, P.S.- Meenapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Excise Department, Muzaffarpur Division, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Collector, Sheohar.

4. The Superinetendent of Police, Sheohar.

5. The Officer In Charge, Sheohar Police, Sheohar. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. TVS Motorcycle of this petitioner bearing registration No.BR-06AR/7409 was seized in connection with Sheohar P.S. Case No.70 of 2017, a case registered for the alleged violation of the Excise laws.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector, Sheohar, confiscated the said motorcycle on 27.06.2017 in Confiscation (Excise) Case No.30 of 2017.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1402 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 P3/ is 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.

5. 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.

6. 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 stated till further order and shall be subject to the result of L.P.A. aforesaid.

7. 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.1402 of 2017 dt.04-09-2017 P3/ Guarantee, along with two sureties of the like amount 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.

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

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06.09.2017 Transmission Date