Mandamus for Release of Transported Jaggery Where No Illicit Liquor Recovered and Procedural Lapses Suggest Malicious Prosecution

The petitioners, licensed businessmen engaged in the trade of jaggery (Gud), challenged the seizure of a tractor/trailer (Reg. No. BR01GK4248/BR01GK4531) and 58.75 quintals of jaggery following an FIR registered under Section 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022.

The police prepared two seizure lists: one on 16.11.2025 for the vehicle and jaggery, and a second on 17.11.2025 for 12 liters of country-made liquor found at a different location (under a bridge).

The petitioners alleged that the seizure was malicious and retaliatory, stemming from a previous High Court order (CWJC No. 15589 of 2024) where the State was directed to compensate Petitioner No. 1 for a wrongful seizure.

A confiscation proceeding (Vehicle Confiscation Case No. 92/2025-26) was initiated during the pendency of the writ.

1. Whether the search and seizure procedure complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

2. Whether the seizure of the vehicle and jaggery was legally sustainable given that no illicit liquor was recovered from the vehicle itself.

3. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to release perishable goods despite the availability of alternative remedies under Rule 12(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021.

Section 105 of the BNSS, 2023, which mandates the recording of search and seizure through audio-video electronic means.

Section 30(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022, regarding the possession of materials for manufacturing liquor.

Rule 12(B) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021, regarding the release of seized vehicles upon payment of penalties, but ultimately relied on the High Court’s discretionary power to grant relief when alternative remedies are inadequate for perishable items.

The Court observed that the illicit liquor was recovered on a different date and from a separate location (under a bridge), not from the petitioners' vehicle.

The respondents failed to substantiate the claim that the jaggery was intended for illicit liquor production, failing to produce the laboratory report mentioned in their counter-affidavit.

The Court found the police's narrative inconsistent, noting that the second seizure list (liquor) was never served on the accused apprehended with the tractor.

Critically, the Court noted that the jaggery—a perishable item—had been lying in police custody for six months, making the alternative remedy under Rule 12(B) inefficient.

The lack of rebuttal to the petitioners' valid business invoices and the history of prior litigation suggested potential police harassment.

The Court directed the Investigating Officer to prepare a Punchnama and take photographs of the articles in the presence of witnesses before release and directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, to conduct an inquiry via a Deputy S.P. into the allegations of police harassment and malicious prosecution.