Seizure and confiscation of premises require proof of owner's direct involvement or connivance in the offence.

The petitioner, Bhushan Mistri, challenged an order dated 14.07.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajgir, which confiscated a room in his house

On 05.05.2024, police conducted a raid based on information that the petitioner's tenants, Shrinath Kumar and Himansu Kumar, were trading illicit liquor

The search yielded 100 liters of illicit liquor and 0.360 liters of English liquor from the tenants' room

Consequently, Rajgir P.S. Case No. 158 of 2024 was registered against the tenants under the Bihar Prohibition Excise Act, 2016

The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR, nor was any recovery made from his personal possession

Despite this, the SDM ordered the confiscation of the portion of the house

The Court primarily applied Sections 30, 56, 57B, and 58 of the Bihar Prohibition Excise Act, 2016 (as amended), which provide for penalties for unlawful possession of liquor and the confiscation of "premises or part thereof" used in the commission of an offence

Rules 12B and 13B of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Rules, 2022, which dictate that the quantum of penalty or the decision to confiscate must consider the nature of the individual's involvement in the crime and ensure that an offence was committed in terms of the Act

Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law

The Court reasoned that under the statutory framework of the Act and the 2022 Rules, the direct involvement or "connivance" of the owner is an "essential prerequisite" for the seizure and confiscation of a premises

In the present case, the FIR and the record admitted that the liquor was recovered solely from the tenants' possession

The respondents failed to produce any evidence in their counter-affidavit demonstrating that the petitioner had any connection with the accused or knowledge of the illegal activities

The Court found that the SDM failed to establish the petitioner's involvement before passing the confiscation order. Consequently, the Court determined that the state’s action was arbitrary, hit by Article 14, and constituted an unauthorized deprivation of property under Article 300A, as the Act does not authorize the seizure of property from an innocent third-party owner without proof of complicity

The High Court set aside the order dated 14.07.2025 passed in Confiscation (Excise) Case No. 31 of 2024. The Court directed the respondents to de-seal and release the premises to the petitioner within two weeks, subject to satisfaction regarding his ownership. The writ petition was allowed