Partly allowed

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibit

Patna HC6 Dec 2017CR. WJC/1765/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interim release of a Bolero vehicle confiscated in an excise case pending a larger bench decision on pre-trial punishment. Court stayed the impugned confiscation order and released the vehicle on interim custody upon execution of a bank guarantee or property document.

What did the court decide?

Impugned confiscation order stayed; vehicle released on interim custody on execution of bank guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/- or property document of equal value.

Manish Kumar Kashyap Vs The State Of Bihar Through… — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1765 of 2017

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- AURANGABAD

¶4

===========================================================

¶5

Manish Kumar Kashyap, S/o Vijay Kumar Kashyap, Resident of Main Road, Japla, Palamu, P.S. - Daltonganj, District - Palamu (Jharkhand)

¶6

.... .... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Excise and Prohibition, Government of Bihar.

¶9

The Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The Collector-cum-The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

¶11

.... .... Respondents

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC-11

¶13

===========================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

Date: 06-12-2017

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

Bolero vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. JH-3E-6972 was seized in connection with Excise Case No. 165 of 2016 as 11 litres of liquor was, allegedly, recovered therefrom. Thereafter, Excise Case No. 222 of 2016 has been initiated by the Collector, Aurangabad and by the impugned order dated 04.08.2017, the vehicle has been ordered to be confiscated.

¶18

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the confiscation of the vehicle would amount to pre-trial punishment which is bad in law. Moreover, the power is exercisable by a judicial authority and the aforesaid issue is pending under consideration before a Larger Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2015 ( Baleshwar Roy vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. ). Hence, till adjudication of the aforesaid issue, let the vehicle be released as ad interim custody in favour of the petitioner as no

¶19

Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1765 of 2017 dt.06-12-2017

¶20

2/2

¶21

purpose is going to be served by its continued detention.

¶22

After hearing the parties, finding substance in the submission aforesaid, it is ordered that operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed and shall be subject to the final result of L.P.A. aforesaid and let the aforesaid vehicle in question be released in favour of the petitioner on interim custody on execution of bank guarantee of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs) or document of immovable property of equal value standing in the name of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned court below/authority concerned where the case is pending, with condition that the petitioner would not dispose of the said vehicle or put the same under encumbrance without permission of the authority concerned and shall produce as and when required by the Court.

¶23

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands

¶24

disposed of.

¶25

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶26

Kundan/-

¶27

AFR/NAFR	N.A.
CAV DATE	N.A.
UploadingDate	08.12.2017
Transmission
Date	08.12.2017

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Kashyap v. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Smart India Marketing Proprietorship Concern Through Its Proprietor Paras Nath Jha and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna

Marjina Begum and Ors. Vs Mir Ishmail and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Ray Vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Registration, Excise And Prohibition Departmen

Ajit Chandravanshi @ Ajit Kumar Chandravanshi Vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Excise Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

Shafat Hussain @ Safatullah Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Registration, Excise And Prohibit