Exclusive Excise Courts retain jurisdiction to release vehicles not involved in commission of excise offences.

The petitioner's TVS Raider motorcycle was seized on December 17, 2025, during a police raid at a Kirana shop.

While three other motorcycles and three persons were apprehended for transporting 5.4 liters of liquor, no liquor was found on the petitioner’s vehicle.

Despite the lack of contraband, the vehicle remained in custody for approximately four months without a verification of ownership or a report to the competent court.

During the pendency of this writ, after the High Court signaled that the S.H.O. might be liable for costs, the S.H.O. of Ishuapur Police Station released the vehicle without a formal court order.

1. Whether a vehicle not found transporting liquor or intoxicants is liable for seizure and confiscation under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016.

2. Whether the jurisdiction of the Exclusive Special Excise Court is ousted under Section 60 of the Act in cases where the seizure is found to be illegal and not recommended for confiscation.

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for the unlawful detention of his property by police authorities.

The court primarily applied Section 56 and Section 57B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which permit the seizure/confiscation of vehicles only when "used in commission of an offence".

It relied on the precedent Sunaina @ Suneina v. State of Bihar (2024), establishing that transport of illicit liquor is a sine qua non for seizure.

The court further interpreted Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, noting it applies only to lawful seizures involving penalties.

For accountability, it applied the doctrine from Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) regarding public officer liability for mala fide exercise of discretion.

The court applied K.K. Pathak v. Ravi Shankar Prasad (2019) regarding the personal liability of erring officials for costs.

The court reasoned that since the respondents admitted the vehicle was not carrying liquor, the seizure lacked any sanction of law and was "wholly illegal".

It observed that Rule 12A of the 2021 Rules did not apply because the vehicle was not used for an offense, and thus no penalty could be sought.

The court clarified that Section 60’s bar on jurisdiction applies only to vehicles "used in committing any offence"; therefore, if a vehicle is seized illegally or not recommended for confiscation, the Exclusive Special Excise Court retains the power to order its release.

The court found the S.H.O.'s act of releasing the vehicle in "hot haste" without a court order during the pendency of litigation was an attempt to avoid legal consequences for an irresponsible action.

The court directed Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar) to pay the petitioner Rs. 50,000 as cost and compensation within one month, to be realized from the personal salaries of the erring officials responsible for the unlawful seizure.