BHARAT SINGH vs State of Bihar — 274/2026

Case under Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act 2016 Section 30A. Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 11th March 2026.

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010015012026

Filing Number

1428/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

274/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Court

DJ Div. Gopalganj

Judge

6-ADJ-IV Cum Excise Act Special Court No.-2

Decision Date

11-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

Last updated 18-May-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

758

Police Station

Madya Nishedh Excise

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act 2016 Section 30A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHARAT SINGH

    Adv. Dilip Kumar Bhagat

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order

    Case Summary The Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Gopalganj rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bharat Singh, who was accused of transporting 719 liters of country-made liquor in his vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. The court found that while Singh claimed innocence and vehicle ownership with no involvement in liquor trafficking, the huge quantity of illicit liquor recovered from his registered vehicle and the statutory bar under Section 76(2) of the Excise Act made the anticipatory bail petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    ADJ-IV Cum Excise Act Special Court No.-2

  4. 02-Mar-2026

    Awaiting for Case Diary

    ADJ-IV Cum Excise Act Special Court No.-2

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 02-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 274/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Gopalganj rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Bharat Singh, who was accused of transporting 719 liters of country-made liquor in his vehicle under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018. The court found that while Singh claimed innocence and vehicle ownership with no involvement in liquor trafficking, the huge quantity of illicit liquor recovered from his registered vehicle and the statutory bar under Section 76(2) of the Excise Act made the anticipatory bail petition unmaintainable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case