Jharkhand High Court Rules Bihar Liquor Ban Law Inapplicable, Orders Conditional Vehicle Release
_526533468.jpg)
In a landmark verdict delineating interstate legislative boundaries, the Jharkhand High Court ruled that the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, holds no legal validity or jurisdiction within the territorial borders of Jharkhand. Presiding over the matter, Justice AK Chaudhary quashed an erroneous ruling issued by the Bokaro Sessions Court, which had previously declined jurisdiction over a seized commercial transport vehicle by citing Bihar's stringent anti-liquor legislation. The High Court firmly observed that because the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act was enacted in 2016—sixteen years after the bifurcation of the state under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000—it remains an exclusive provincial statute of Bihar that cannot, under any circumstances, be invoked or enforced within Jharkhand’s judicial and law enforcement apparatus.
Bokaro Lower Courts’ Jurisdictional Oversight: How Bihar's Excise Act Slipped Into a Jharkhand Case
The legal dispute stemmed from an interception conducted by the Pindrajora police station within Bokaro district, where law enforcement officials confiscated a commercial pickup van reportedly carrying an illicit consignment of 1,740 whiskey bottles packed inside 145 cartons. Following the impoundment, vehicle owner Ritesh Pradhan approached the Bokaro Judicial Magistrate seeking interim custody of the vehicle, which was dismissed on May 27, 2026, after police stated a recommendation for confiscation had been forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner. Challenging that dismissal, the petitioner appealed to the Bokaro Sessions Court, which rejected the plea on June 27, 2026, erroneously asserting that statutory confiscation powers under Bihar's 2016 Prohibition Act divest criminal courts of their jurisdiction—prompting an urgent revision petition before the High Court.
Justice AK Chaudhary Mandates Conditional Custody: ₹9 Lakh Bond and Strict Undertakings
Representing the vehicle owner before the High Court, advocate Girish Mohan Singh argued that the commercial vehicle had been procured through financial credit and was deteriorating due to prolonged exposure in open police impound yards, while highlighting that no actual statutory confiscation proceedings had been formally initiated by a competent authority. Taking strong exception to the lower judiciary's reasoning, Justice Chaudhary declared the Sessions Court's reliance on Bihar’s legislation a serious legal error. The High Court directed the Bokaro Judicial Magistrate to verify with the Deputy Commissioner whether formal confiscation proceedings have been initiated; if not, the vehicle must be conditionally released to petitioner Ritesh Pradhan upon furnishing an indemnity bond of ₹9 lakh with two solvent sureties, along with explicit undertakings that the vehicle will not be sold, mortgaged, transferred, or physically altered during the pendency of trial proceedings.
_371777076_351x234.jpg)
