RANCHI: The Jharkhand High Court has held that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, is not applicable in Jharkhand and directed the release of a vehicle seized in connection with an alleged liquor transportation case, subject to verification of whether confiscation proceedings had been initiated.
The High Court, while hearing the case of Ritesh Pradhan vs State of Jharkhand, said the Bihar law was applicable only within the state of Bihar and could not be relied upon in proceedings in Jharkhand.
The court held that the Sessions Court had committed a “grave illegality” by relying on provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, while deciding whether the seized vehicle could be released.
“It is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016; which is a State Act of Bihar having been extending to the whole State of Bihar as per Section 1(2) of the said Act. Certainly, the provisions of the said Act having been enacted after reorganization of the State of Bihar in the year 2000 by Bihar Reorganization Act, is not applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Hence, certainly the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro has committed a grave illegality by relying upon the provisions of the Bihar Prohibition & Excise Act, 2016,” the court said.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary was hearing a petition filed by the owner of a commercial pick-up vehicle seized in connection with Pindrajora Police Station Case No. 18 of 2026. The vehicle was allegedly being used to transport 145 cartons containing 750 ml bottles of liquor.
The vehicle owner had initially approached the Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, seeking its release. The Magistrate rejected the application, citing a request sent to the Deputy Commissioner to initiate confiscation proceedings against the vehicle.
The owner subsequently filed a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Bokaro. The petition was also dismissed, with the Sessions Court relying on provisions of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, which provide for confiscation of vehicles allegedly used to transport illicit liquor and restrict the jurisdiction of criminal courts over such property.
The vehicle owner then approached the Jharkhand High Court, challenging the Sessions Court's order.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that confiscation proceedings against the vehicle had not actually been initiated. The petitioner also submitted that keeping the commercial vehicle idle for a prolonged period could damage it and cause financial losses, as the vehicle had been purchased with a loan for commercial use.
The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's order and directed the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro, to ascertain whether confiscation proceedings had been initiated.
“Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro to call for a Report from the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro as to whether any confiscation proceeding in respect of the vehicle in-question has been initiated and if no such confiscation proceeding has been initiated, the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro is directed to release the commercial pick-up vehicle,” the court said.
