Scooter seized for carrying contraband liquor in Cuttack
Excise authorities seized a TVS Jupiter scooter allegedly used to transport contraband liquor and started confiscation proceedings under the Odisha Excise Act. The vehicle owner's plea for interim release was first refused by the magistrate. The High Court set aside that refusal and ordered the scooter released on an indemnity bond of Rs 50,000 with a surety.
This page records what the cited court records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →Seizure stands with confiscation proceeding C.P. No.44/2025-26 pending; interim custody of the scooter was ordered to be given to the owner on conditions.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the prosecution report revealed a case under section 52(a) of the Odisha Excise Act, 2008, and that the seizure vehicle was a TVS Jupiter bearing registration OD-06-E-3857.
The High Court recorded the State's objection that the vehicle was involved in transportation of contraband liquor and was subject to a confiscation proceeding, C.P. No.44/2025-26, which was why interim release had been refused.
The High Court recorded that the vehicle had been seized on 5th June, 2025 and had lain idle at the Excise police station since then.
The High Court set aside the refusal order and directed release of the scooter to the owner on an indemnity bond of Rs 50,000 with one solvent surety and an undertaking to produce it when required.
The order alleges no spurious or poisonous liquor, hooch deaths, or violence.
What the record says
“A copy of the P.R. is at Annexure-1 and the same is gone through and it reveals a case under Section 52(a) of Odisha Excise Act, 2008 to have been registered.”
[name withheld] vs State of Odisha, CRLREV No.517 of 2026, Orissa High Court order dated 19.08.2026, para 3 — read the full text
No complaining victim
Carrying ordinary contraband liquor harms no one; no poisoning, death, or violence is alleged.
What we could not confirm
The quantity of liquor was not stated in the order. The prosecution report named a different man as accused while the revisionist claimed to be the lawful owner; that ownership claim could not be independently verified.