Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 Does Not Apply in Jharkhand.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a commercial pick-up vehicle bearing Registration No. JH-05-DF-9463, which was seized in connection with Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 18 of 2026, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 474 of 2026, involving the alleged illegal transportation of 145 cartons of liquor.

The case invoked Sections 270, 271, 292, 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 47(a), 52 and 55 of the Excise Act, 2015.

The petitioner applied before the Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle.

The police report stated that a confiscation process had been initiated and that a requisition had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro; on that basis, the Magistrate rejected the release application on 27.05.2026.

The Sessions Judge, Bokaro dismissed the petitioner’s criminal revision and affirmed the order, relying on the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 and holding that the criminal court’s jurisdiction was barred once the vehicle had been seized for illicit liquor transportation.

The petitioner thereafter invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, contending that the Bihar enactment was inapplicable to Jharkhand and that no actual confiscation proceeding had been initiated.

Whether the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 could be relied upon in proceedings arising in the State of Jharkhand?

Whether the petitioner’s seized vehicle should be released when the refusal of release was based on the purported initiation or contemplation of confiscation proceedings?

Whether the Magistrate was required to verify from the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro whether a confiscation proceeding had actually been initiated before deciding the release application?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

The Court considered the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Excise Act, 2015, including the statutory provisions concerning illicit liquor and confiscation.

It held that the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016, being a Bihar State enactment extending to the State of Bihar under Section 1(2), could not be applied in Jharkhand merely because the two States were formerly part of the same State; consequently, reliance on that enactment by the Sessions Court constituted a grave illegality.

Where confiscation proceedings are relied upon to justify continued retention of seized property, the existence of such proceedings must be verified from the competent confiscating authority.

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had applied the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 to a case arising in Jharkhand, although the statute was confined to Bihar and was therefore inapplicable in the present proceedings.

Although the police report stated that a requisition had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner for confiscation, the petitioner’s specific grievance was that no confiscation proceeding had actually been initiated.

Since both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge had rejected release primarily on the assumption that confiscation proceedings were contemplated, the High Court directed the Magistrate to obtain a current report from the Deputy Commissioner.

If no confiscation proceeding had in fact been initiated, continued retention of the vehicle could not be justified solely by reference to a possible future confiscation process; release was therefore directed subject to safeguards securing production and preservation of the vehicle.

The High Court directed the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, to call for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, regarding whether confiscation proceedings had actually been initiated against vehicle No. JH-05-DF-9463.

If no such proceeding had been initiated, the Magistrate was directed to release the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing an indemnity bond of Rs. 9,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, undertaking to produce the vehicle as required, and subject to conditions prohibiting its sale, mortgage, transfer, alteration or tampering with its identification during the pendency of the case.

The Court also held that the Sessions Judge had committed a grave illegality by relying on the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016 in a Jharkhand proceeding.