ANSHU SINGH vs State of Bihar — 276/2026

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

Case disposed

Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRGO010015062026

Filing Number

1432/2026

Filing Date

02-Feb-2026

Registration No

276/2026

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

126

Police Station

VISHAMBHARPUR

Year

2022

Acts & Sections

Bihar Prohibition of Excise Act 2016 Section 30A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANSHU SINGH

    Adv. ANUP KUMAR UPADHYAY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-Mar-2026

    Order

    Court Decision Summary: The Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Gopalganj rejected Anshu Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a liquor smuggling case (Vishambharpur P.S Case No. 126 of 2022 under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018). The court found that the petitioner was identified at the crime scene where 29 liters of country-made liquor was recovered, he fled when police arrived, witnesses corroborated the prosecution case, and anticipatory bail is statutorily not maintainable under Section 76(2) of the Excise Act. 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 L. C. R.

    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. 276/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Court Decision Summary: The Exclusive Special Excise Court-II, Gopalganj rejected Anshu Singh's anticipatory bail petition in a liquor smuggling case (Vishambharpur P.S Case No. 126 of 2022 under Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Amendment Act, 2018). The court found that the petitioner was identified at the crime scene where 29 liters of country-made liquor was recovered, he fled when police arrived, witnesses corroborated the prosecution case, and anticipatory bail is statutorily not maintainable under Section 76(2) of the Excise Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case