Disposed¶25

Sanskriti v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Apr 2025CWJC/4912/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2025 (decided 17-04-2025); release of seized vehicle writ petition; I-20 car BR01HE/5149 Chasis MALBH512LPM231263 seized in Town P.S. Case No. 76/2025; offences under Sections 281 and 324(4) of BNS and Section 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act; seizure memo showing driver (petitioner's husband Uday Kumar) alleged under intoxication; seizure held not warranted; penalties proper under Motor Vehicle Act; Rs. 12,000/- penalty imposed; release directed within three days; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner's white colour I-20 vehicle (Registration No. BR01HE/5149) to the petitioner within three days of receipt/production of a copy of the order, subject to the Rs. 12,000/- penalty already imposed on her husband Uday Kumar in lieu of action under the Motor Vehicle Act.

Sanskriti Vs The State of Bihar — Motor Accident Claims | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents should release the petitioner's white colour I-20 vehicle bearing Registration No. BR01HE/5149, Chasis No. MALBH512LPM231263, seized in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 76/2025 (Sections 281, 324(4) of BNS; Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act). +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

In light of the facts and circumstances, the respondents were directed to release the subject matter vehicle to the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Given that the seizure memo showed the driver (petitioner's husband) merely alleged to be under intoxication, seizure of the vehicle was not warranted; penal action should instead have been taken under the Motor Vehicle Act.

¶21

Key takeaways

Since the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and to give quietus to the litigation, instead of action under the Motor Vehicle Act the petitioner's husband Uday Kumar was penalized by imposing a penalty of Rs. 12,000/-.ratio¶22
The concerned authority was directed to release the subject matter vehicle to the petitioner within three days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Patna, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4912 of 2025, decided 17-04-2025 (oral judgment per Hon'ble Justice P. B. Bajanthri; bench included Hon'ble Justice S. B. Pd. Singh). Petitioner Sanskriti, owner of a white I-20 vehicle (Regn. No. BR01HE/5149, Chasis No. MALBH512LPM231263) seized in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 76/2025 (registered for offences under Sections 281 and 324(4) of BNS and Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act), sought its release. Relying on the seizure memo, under which her husband — the driver — was merely alleged to be under intoxication, the court held that seizure of the vehicle was not warranted and that penal action properly lay under the Motor Vehicle Act. To give quietus to the litigation, the petitioner's husband Uday Kumar was penalized Rs. 12,000/-, and the concerned authority was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner (the owner) within three days of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Subject to these observations and directions, the writ petition stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4912 of 2025

¶2

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

¶3

Sanskriti Daughter of Ladddoo Narayan Singh, Resident of Naya Tola,

¶4

Lohiyapur, Ward No.-07/16 near R.M.K School, Thana- Banka, DistrictBanka.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

¶9

The Supertendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶10

The Station House Officer, Hajipur Town Thana, Vaishali at Hajipur.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kaushal Kishor, Advocate Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Additional Advocate General (4) ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶14

Date : 17-04-2025

¶15

In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):-

¶16

“I. For direction to respondent to release of white colour I-20 vehicle bearing Registration No. BR01HE/5149, Chasis No. MALBH512LPM231263 seized in connection with Town P.S. Case No.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025 2/3

¶18

76/2025 registered for the offence 281, 324(4) of BNS and 37 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

¶19

II. For any other relief/’s for which the petitioner is found entitle in the fact and circumstances of the case and/or the sake of justice.”

¶20

From perusal of the seizure memo, it is evident that

¶21

the petitioner’s husband who was driving the subject matter vehicle was alleged to be under intoxication, in such circumstance, it is not warranted for seizure of the vehicle. No doubt, seizure of the vehicle would be available under the Motor Vehicle Act. In this regard, he should have been penalized for the offences under Motor Vehicle Act.

¶22

In the light of these facts and circumstances, the respondents are hereby directed to release the subject matter vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Instead of taking action under Motor Vehicle Act against the husband of the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and in order to give quietus to the litigation husband of the petitioner-Uday Kumar was penalized by imposing penalty of Rs. 12,000/-. The concerned authority is hereby directed to release the subject matter vehicle in favour of petitioner within a period of three days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶23

Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction, the

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.4912 of 2025 dt.17-04-2025 3/3

¶25

writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

ranjan/-

¶27

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	22.04.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Sanskriti v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanskriti v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birendra Singh @ Virendra Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Shankar Baranwal Vs The State of Bihar

Pawan Kumar, Vs The Union of India

Dinesh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.

Prabha Shankar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Bishal Roadways, Vs The Union of India