Udit Bhanu vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 172 dated 22.04.2026 passed by Senior Deputy Collector - cum - Presiding Officer, Excise Court No. 7, Aurangabad in Excise Confiscation Case No. 16 of 2026 directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the latest insured value of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 2,63,407 /-. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondents to release the seized Maruti XL6 vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. JH01EJ1220, engine no. K15BN9144324, chasis no. MA3CNC32SMG259739 in his favour which has been seized by the Officer In Charge, Deo Police Station in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered under section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

The brief facts of the case is that petitioner is the owner of the Maruti XL6 vehicle, which was given to M/s Drigo India Cars Pvt. Ltd. (in short “rental company”) for rental services. The agreement between the petitioner and the said rental company was entered on 04.11.2023 for a period of six months starting from the date of signing of the agreement by both the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said vehicle of the petitioner was hired through rental company by the co-accused / Deepak Kumar for the period from 01.03.2024 to 09.03.2024. On 04.03.2024 the vehicle in question was seized in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 52 of 2024 from where the co-accused / Deepak Kumar was arrested along with 501.12 liters of liquor. In the F.I.R. the name of the petitioner is not there but he has been made accused as the owner of the vehicle. Police after investigation submitted final form and in absence of any material against the petitioner, Police exonerated the petitioner in the final form not sending him for trial. The final form was submitted by the Police on 31.12.2024. The vehicle in question was hired on rental basis by the co-accused Deepak Kumar from the rental company for the period commencing from 01.03.2024 till 09.03.2024 for which co-accused / Deepak Kumar submitted a consent form before the rental company for hiring the car on 01.03.2024. In the consent form for car hiring there is specific condition that any illegal activity done during period of using the car will be reported in the name of the customer who hired the car. The car was hired on 01.03.2024 till 09.03.2024 but it was intercepted by the Police on 04.03.2024. This clearly shows that the car was seized during the period the same was in the use and possession of the co-accused / Deepak Kumar, who had hired the car on rental basis. The petitioner was having no knowledge about the fact that his vehicle was being used by the hirer for carrying liquor. The vehicle is lying in open at Deo Police Station and there is likelihood that the vehicle will be damaged if it is not released for a long time. Already about two years have passed since the vehicle was seized and it is kept in open at the Police Station. The confiscating authority / A.D.M. has passed the order in a mechanical manner without having any consideration of the fact that petitioner’s involvement was not there in the offence.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 92 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Excise Act”) and he without availing the remedy has directly filed the present writ application. The liability arising out of use of vehicle for commission of offence under the Excise Act cannot be avoided by the owner merely by asserting that the vehicle had been given on rent and that the owner had no knowledge of its misuse. The impugned order has been passed by the competent authority after due consideration of the relevant facts and statutory provisions and does not suffer from any illegality.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order including the materials available on record. From perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that the vehicle was intercepted on 04.03.2024 and one Deepak Kumar was arrested by the Police. The petitioner was not made accused by name but in the accused column the petitioner was made accused as the owner of the vehicle. It is true that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle but from Annexure -P/4 it appears that petitioner had entered into an agreement with the car rental company M/s Drigo India Cars Pvt. Ltd. on 04.11.2023 for a period of six months. Before expiry of period of agreement the car was given on rent by the rental company to Deepak Kumar Yadav @ Deepak Kumar, S/o Ramjatan Yadav, resident of Arurua Khurd, Hariharganj, Palamu, Jharkhand. The consent form was filled up by Deepak Kumar and in support of his identity PAN Card , Aadhaar Card, D.L. etc. were produced to the rental company. As per the terms and conditions for hiring the car, the action contrary to law was forbidden. Police after investigation has not found any involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence under the Excise Act.

Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules (for short “The Rules”) mandates that the amount of penalty shall be decided by the Collector or the Officer authorized by him but while imposing penalty the Officer shall have due regard to the quantity of intoxicant recovered, involvement of the vehicle’s owner and the latest insured value of the vehicle. It further stipulates that in no case penalty should be less than 10% of the insured value of the vehicle and more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. Insured value of the vehicle is Rs. 5,26,815/- . The involvement of the petitioner was not there as per the final form submitted by the Police as well as from the documents produced by the petitioner of the rental company. From the documents produced by the petitioner it is clear that the co-accused / Deepak Kumar took on hire the vehicle in question from rental company for the period 01.03.2024 to 09.03.2024. Admittedly the vehicle was intercepted and 501.12 liters of liquor was recovered from the vehicle on 04.03.2024 i.e. within the period the vehicle was in possession and control of the hirer - Deepak Kumar. The respondent authority while deciding the release of the vehicle on the basis of application filed by the petitioner under Rule 12(A) of the Rules has not taken into consideration the statutory provision of Rule 12A(2) including the involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence under the Excise Act. The order passed by the confiscating authority does not discuss anything regarding involvement of the petitioner and reason behind imposing 50% of the latest insured value of the vehicle as penalty upon the petitioner. The order is cryptic without application of mind and has been passed without consideration in a mechanical manner and only a chart has been prepared and on that basis impugned order has been passed.

Considering the aforesaid discussions and the fact that vehicle was in possession and control of the co-accused / Deepak Kumar and was intercepted during effective hire service period and there is no direct and indirect involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence under the Excise Act and the respondent Confiscating Officer / Authorized Officer has failed to consider the statutory provision in this regard, we have no option but to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.04.2026 is set aside. The respondent no. 3 - Senior Deputy Collector -cum-Presiding Officer, Excise Court No. 7, Aurangabad is directed to release the vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner on payment of 10% of the latest insured value of the vehicle within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application is disposed of.