Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Chandsi Ray @ Chansi RaiversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Chandsi Ray, was arrested in connection with the alleged seizure of 1,568 litres of spirit from a pick‑up van, charged under sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. He contended that he was neither the owner nor the driver of the vehicle, that his name was linked to the case only through an informant’s tip, and that no spirit was found in his conscious possession. The petitioner also argued that the seizure violated Section 105 of the BNSS, which was not complied with at the time of seizure. Despite having one prior criminal antecedent and being in custody since 28‑03‑2026, the court considered the lack of direct possession and procedural lapses. The court therefore granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, directing release to the satisfaction of the Special Excise Court.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused under sections 30(a) and 41(1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act given the alleged seizure and procedural irregularities.
  • Whether the non‑compliance of Section 105 of the BNSS and the absence of conscious possession justify bail despite a prior criminal antecedent.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • excise
  • prohibition
  • seizure
  • procedural lapse
  • criminal antecedent
  • Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28944 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2026 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran
                 ======================================================
                 Chandsi Ray @ Chansi Rai Son of Janak Rai Resident of village Gunrajpur,
                 P.S.- Taraiya, District - Saran.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Hemant Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Ramesh Chandra, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-05-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under sections 30 (a) and

                   41 (1) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that from a pick-

                   up van, a total of 1568 litres of spirit was allegedly recovered.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in

                   connection with the present case. It is further submitted that the

                   petitioner is neither the owner nor the driver of the said pick-up

                   van. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner has

                   surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of

                   information allegedly disclosed by the informant, who has
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28944 of 2026(2) dt.05-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      stated that the petitioner is involved in excise-related offences. It

                      is also submitted that nothing has been recovered from the

                      conscious possession of the petitioner. The witnesses to the

                      seizure list are police personnel, and the mandatory provisions

                      of Section 105 of the BNSS have not been complied with at the

                      time of seizure. It is further submitted that the petitioner has one

                      criminal antecedent and is in custody since 28.03.2026.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                      the prayer for bail.

                                   6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                      of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on

                      bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on

                      bail in connection with Tariya P.S. Case No. 66 of 2026 on

                      furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two

                      sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 3 rd

                      Exclusive Special Excise Court, Saran at Chapra.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/-

U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.