Ashok Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Date : 28-08-2026

Heard learned counsels for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to release the jewelry belonging to the petitioner and his family members seized in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered under Sections 132, 109, 324(4), 324(5), 317(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police conducted raid in the house of the petitioner on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Manoj Sah @ Manoj Turha. Recovery of smack like substance was made from the house of the petitioner and during search certain gold and silver jewelry articles belonging to the petitioner and his family members were also seized by the police authorities. Learned counsel further submits that the seized jewelry articles are personal ornaments of the petitioner’s family members, acquired through lawful means and are not proceeds of crime. Therefore, the continued retention of the jewelry by the police authorities is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel representing the State respondents submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and instead of approaching the learned Special Court under the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner has straightway approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. The petitioner already has an alternative and efficacious remedy available and filing the present writ petition is misuse of process of law.

I find merit in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the State respondents. The matter is already before the learned Special Court of N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioner should have filed the application for release of seized articles before the said Court and could not have straightway come before this Court under writ jurisdiction. It is settled law that an alternative and efficacious remedy bars filing of writ petition and when statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Article 497 of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the petitioner ought not to have rushed before this Court in this manner. Therefore, relegating the petitioner to approach the learned trial Court with his prayer, the present writ petition is disposed of.