SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD MAURYA ALIAS SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD MAURYA vs STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA — 532/2026

Case under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Section 27(b)(ii),28. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT on 02nd April 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGA010022912026

Filing Number

2183/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

532/2026

Registration Date

05-Feb-2026

Court

Gaya DJ Div.

Judge

4-District and Additional Sessions Judge-I

Decision Date

02-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT

Last updated 17-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Drugs and Cosmetics Act Section 27(b)(ii),28

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD MAURYA ALIAS SHEO SHANKAR PRASAD MAURYA

    Adv. JUHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH Advocate - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, GAYA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Gaya dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Shiv Shankar Prasad Maurya (charged under Sections 27(b)(ii) & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940) on the ground of non-prosecution. The petitioner's counsel failed to appear on two consecutive dates, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I

  4. 17-Mar-2026

    Bail Matters

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Bail Matters

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I

  6. 19-Feb-2026

    Bail Matters

    District and Additional Sessions Judge-I

  7. 07-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 532/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Gaya dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Shiv Shankar Prasad Maurya (charged under Sections 27(b)(ii) & 28 of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940) on the ground of non-prosecution. The petitioner's counsel failed to appear on two consecutive dates, demonstrating lack of interest in pursuing the bail application. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case