PRINCEKANT KUMAR @ PRINSKANT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Govindpur P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025 dtd. 18/6/2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

(2.) As per the allegation, two persons, who are co- accused, were riding on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. BR-21Q-2509, which belongs to the petitioner and as per further case of the prosecution, the pillion rider of the motorcycle was carrying a pithubag on his back containing 6 litre illicit liquor. The FIR was lodged against the Petitioner, who was owner of the vehicle as well as two accused, who were riding the motorcycle at the time of recovery of the illicit liquor but the Petitioner was not present, nor any illicit liquor was recovered from him.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is innocent and he was no way connected with the alleged offence, nor was any occasion for the police to make the Petitioner an accused in this case. He further submits that even presumption under Sec. 32 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the owner of the vehicle would arise only when the vehicle could have been used in the commission of the alleged offence under the Act, but as per the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehicle was not used in the commission of the alleged offence nor was the Petitioner/Owner riding the vehicle, nor was he present at the time of recovery of the illicit liquor from the co-accused, who was a pillion rider of the motorcycle at the relevant time. He also submits that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner had given the motorcycle to the co- accused, Amrendra Kumar for bringing some medicine for his mother who was suffering from some illness. Hence, there was no occasion for the police to implead the Petitioner as accused or seize the motorcycle, because a motorcycle is liable to be seized under the Excise Act only when it could have been used in the transportation of the illicit liquor. At most, the co-accused, who was carrying the pitthu bag on his back with illicit liquor could be prosecuted for illegal possession of illicit liquor. The seizure of the vehicle and impleadment of the Petitioner is arbitrary and contrary to the judgments of learned Division Bench of this Court in (i) Sunaina Vs. State of Bihar, as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 851 and (ii) Binit Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, as reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 850, in which under similar facts and circumstances, learned Division Bench clearly held that in such facts and circumstances, the motorcycle could not be deemed to be used in the commission of any offence under the Excise Act and the vehicle could not be seized or confiscated.