Allowed

Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC5 Aug 2019CWJC/7922/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court ordered provisional release of the petitioner's Tempo vehicle seized for liquor offences, conditioning it on ownership proof, registration, two sureties, and specific undertakings to not alienate the asset.

What did the court decide?

Provisional release of seized vehicle (BR01PF3178) upon submission of ownership proof, registration, two sureties conditioned on the value, and specific undertakings against alienation.

Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7922 of 2019

¶2

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

¶3

Sonu Kumar Son of Munni Yadav @ Munni Lal Yadav, Resident of VillageNurudinpur, P.S. Punpun, District- Patna.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

The Director General of Police Bihar, Patna.

¶8

The Excise Commissioner, Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶9

The Inspector General of Police. Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District Magistrate, District- Patna, Bihar.

¶11

The Senior Superintendent of Police, District- Patna, Bihar.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Excise, District- Patna, Bihar.

¶13

The Officer-In-Charge of Punpun Police Station, District- Patna.

¶14

... ... Respondent/s

¶15

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

¶16

Appearance :

¶17

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satrudhan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anil Kr. Sinha (Ga1)

¶18

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY)

¶19

Date : 05-08-2019

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶21

The petitioner is owner of the Tempo and prays for provisional release of his vehicle bearing Registration No. BR01PF3178 which has been seized in connection with Punpun P.S. Case No. 120 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2019 dt.05-08-2019 2/3

¶23

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that confiscation proceeding is pending and the vehicle is lying under the open sky in the police station. The seizure list supports the seizure of the vehicle and 30 litres of Mahua liquor.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the nature of seizure made as well as the fact that the confiscation proceeding is pending, we direct that the vehicle in question be released provisionally in favour of the petitioner on production of ownership and registration with respect to vehicle in question in his name before the District Magistrate, Patna with two sureties to the extent of the value of the vehicle as indicated in the insurance document. The petitioner while submitting the sureties shall also furnish the following affidavits/undertakings:

¶25

(i) That the vehicle in question has never been involved in any offence of similar nature in past and shall not indulge in similar offence in future.

¶26

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in creating any third party right or interest in respect of the vehicle during the pendency of the confiscation proceeding and shall not alienate the vehicle during this period.

¶27

(iii) The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.7922 of 2019 dt.05-08-2019 3/3

¶29

produce the vehicle before the confiscating authority as and when required.

¶30

(iv) Prior to release of the vehicle, a Panchanama would be prepared by the District Magistrate, Patna wherein the photograph of the vehicle shall be taken and will be certified by the petitioner and the same shall be kept on record so that in future if so required, it may be used as a secondary evidence. The petitioner shall furnish an undertaking not to challenge the said Panchanama in course of trial.

¶31

The release shall be allowed within a period of 14 days from the date of submission of the sureties and the undertakings as stated above. This release would however, be subject to finalization of the confiscation proceeding if any.

¶32

With the observations, this writ petition is allowed.

¶33

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶34

( Partha Sarthy, J)

¶35

sushma/-

¶36

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	17.8.19
Transmission Date	NA

Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vinod Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Harendra Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindar Kumar @ Rabindra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Chhathiya Devi Vs The State of Bihar