Court may impose nominal penalty under Article 226 for vehicle release involving meager liquor recovery.

The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, sought the release of his motorcycle (Registration No. BR06CA7068) seized by the Panapur Kariyat Police on August 24, 2024

Police intercepted the vehicle based on secret information and arrested one Guddu Kumar, recovering 2.52 litres of illicit foreign liquor

Consequently, a case was registered under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022

The petitioner contended he was neither present nor driving the vehicle, having lent it to the accused for a medical emergency, and that the accused misused it without his knowledge

The State argued for the application of Rule 12A(2) of the 2023 Rules, requiring a penalty for the release of the seized vehicle

Whether the court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to reduce the statutory penalty for the release of a vehicle seized under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act when the quantity of contraband is meager and the owner's involvement is not established?

Rule 12A(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2023, which mandates that penalties for vehicle release should generally not be less than 10% of the insured value

Rule 12A(4) of the 2022 Rules, which requires authorities to consider the economic status of the individual, nature of involvement, and the quantum of intoxicant recovered

The court relied on the precedent set in Rakesh Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar Ors. (CWJC No. 14928 of 2025), which held that imposing high penalties in the absence of evidence of regular involvement in liquor transportation is an "onerous condition"

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The court evaluated the proportionality of the penalty relative to the offense.

It noted that only 2.52 litres of liquor were recovered, which it classified as a "meager quantity"

The court observed that the petitioner was neither riding the motorcycle nor present at the scene, and the respondent-State failed to provide evidence that the petitioner or the vehicle was involved in habitual liquor transportation or multiple criminal cases

The court reasoned that strictly following the standard confiscation or penalty procedures under Sections 57B, 58, 92, and 93 of the Act for such a small recovery would lead to unnecessary hardship and a multiplicity of proceedings

By connecting the "nature of involvement" and "quantum of intoxicant" criteria found in Rule 12A(4) of the 2022 Rules to the facts, the court determined that an equitable remedy was necessary

It held that in the interest of justice and equity, the petitioner shall pay a nominal penalty of Rs. 2,000/- instead of the statutory minimum

The court directed that upon the deposit of this sum within three weeks and verification of ownership documents, the competent authority must release the vehicle within one week thereafter

The court clarified that this order was passed under Article 226 to prevent procedural harassment for a minor recovery of 2.52 litres of liquor