Sham Lal Arora @ Shyam Lal Arora v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.866 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- GAYA =========================================================== Sham Lal Arora @ Shyam Lal Arora, Son of Late Labhu Ram, Resident of House No. 7, P.S. - Patiala, Dashmesh Nagar Tripurari Patiala, District - Patiala, State - Punjab .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate- cum-Collector, Gaya

3. The Superintendent of Police, Gaya

4. The Excise Superintendent, Gaya

5. The Officer-in-Charge, Rampur Police Station in the District of Gaya .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mrs. Manisha Singh, A.C. to G.P. VII =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-07-2017 Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The petitioner claims to be owner of Mahindra XUV-500 vehicle bearing registration no. PB11BC7049 which was seized in connection with Rampur P.S. Case No. 142 of 2017 for alleged violation of the Excise Laws.

By the impugned order dated 23.05.2017, the learned Special Excise Judge, Gaya refused to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner for the reason that Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 bars jurisdiction of the court in such matter. The aforesaid order is under challenge in this criminal writ petition.

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.866 of 2017 dt.11-07-2017 2/2 The State-respondents, in their counter affidavit, have challenged the prayer on the ground that the order of the court below is consistent with the law applicable, hence, requires no interference. Considering the fact that power of the Executive Authority to confiscate and auction the seized articles, which is exercisable by a judicial authority, is under challenge before a Larger Bench in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2015 (Baleshwar Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) as well as considering the fact that different Division Benches of this Court have ordered interim release of the seized vehicle in favour of the owner of the vehicle, let the vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner on execution of surety bond of Rs.

7,00,000/- (rupees seven lakhs) (not in the form of bank guarantee) along with two sureties 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. This order shall be subject to the final result of the pending L.P.A. aforesaid.

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

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13.07.2017 Transmission Date 13.07.2017