Patna High Court delivered 11 judgments on January 13, 2026 in Baby Naz vs. The State of Bihar, Chanchala Kumari @ Munni Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Manoj Kumar Sudhanshu, Subodh Kumar Sudhanshu vs. The State of Bihar, Ramesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Dr. Vinay Kumar Ambedkar @ Vinay Kumar Ambedakar vs. The State of Bihar, Akhileshwar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar, Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Sima Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Pragash Rai vs. The Union of India & Ors., Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Sidhu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
In Neelam Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Government of Bihar, Justice Arun Kumar Jha delivered a 8-page long judgement wherein, he imposed a cost of Rs.50,000/ upon the State authorities for undue harassment of the petitioner. The petitioner had approached the High for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the respondent authorities to unseal/unlock the house of the petitioner which has been locked/ sealed without making aware the petitioner any reason for locking the same on January 31, 2022. The facts of the case were that Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019, dated October 6, 2019 was instituted for the offences under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act (Amendment) Act, 2018 with allegation that son of the petitioner has kept India made foreign liquor in his house and selling the same. A raid was conducted and son of the petitioner was apprehended. The house of the petitioner was searched and recovery of total 8.25 litres of Indian made foreign liquor was made from the house of the petitioner. It also transpired the part of the house of the petitioner was sealed on January 31, 2022 and the petitioner was told verbally that as the recovery of illicit was made from the house of the petitioner earlier, her house was being sealed.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land on which house was constructed subsequently was purchased by the petitioner through registered sale deed and the land was also mutated in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner was not made accused in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019. No presumption was ever raised about the involvement of the petitioner and the house of the petitioner was not sealed when allegedly the recovery of illicit liquor was made from it. But all of a sudden, the police came and sealed the house of the petitioner after more than two years of the occurrence. The counsel further submitted that prior to sealing, the investigation was closed in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 797 of 2019. Therefore, the subsequent sealing of the house of the petitioner was without authority of law as the police has not reopened the investigation. Hence, the action of the police was illegal, malicious, arbitrary and malafide. The part of the house remained sealed for more than four years, therefore, the authorities were liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel prays for unsealing of the house of the petitioner and award of compensation.
Justice Jha observed:"If the house or part of it was not sealed immediately when the raid was conducted and recovery was made, the same cannot be done after two years. Subsequent enactment under Excise Rules which came into effect in the year 2022 also provides that sealing should be done immediately and within 24 hours. Therefore, it is clear position of law that the sealing should have been done then and there
when the recovery was made and the authorities could not waited for such a long time But, the authorities waited for more than two years and thereafter, moved for sealing of the house of the petitioner which cannot be said to be sanctioned by any statutory provision. If a statute provides for doing a thing in a particular manner, the said thing is to be done in the same manner and not at all. This is clear proposition of law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors., (2011) 14 SCC 770. Therefore, on this sole ground, the act of the respondent authorities for sealing the premises of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Subsequent fact also supports the contention of the petitioner about sealing not being legal as charge sheet has been submitted and investigation has been completed in this case. Thereafter, the police authorities became functus officio. Unless further investigation was ordered in the case or there is any order by any other court, the authorities acted without sanction of law. Moreover, no such pleading has come on record. 10. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the action of the State authorities is beyond the mandate of the law." The High Court directed the authorities to immediately unseal the house of the petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment