Dileep Mahato vs State of Bihar — 932/2026

Case under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 Section 30(a). Disposed: Contested--Bail Rejected on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed

A.b.p - Anticipatory Bail

CNR: BRSR010036622026

e-Filing Number

09-03-2026

Filing Number

3420/2026

Filing Date

09-Mar-2026

Registration No

932/2026

Registration Date

09-Mar-2026

Court

DJ Div. Saran at Chapra

Judge

7-Excl.Spl.Excise.Court-02

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Bail Rejected

Last updated 25-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

127

Police Station

RIVIL GANJ

Year

2026

Acts & Sections

Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016 Section 30(a)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Dileep Mahato

    Adv. Atul Kumar Ojha

  2. 2.Dileep Mahato

    Adv. Atul Kumar Ojha

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of Bihar

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy of Bail OrderView PDF

    The Court of 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Dileep Mahto and another accused charged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for illegal liquor business. The court found prima facie involvement of the accused based on recovery of 300 liters of countrymade liquor and criminal antecedents, and held it lacks jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail petitions under Section 76(2) of the Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 18-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Excl.Spl.Excise.Court-02

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 932/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Court of 2nd Exclusive Special Excise Judge, Saran rejected the anticipatory bail petition filed by Dileep Mahto and another accused charged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, for illegal liquor business. The court found prima facie involvement of the accused based on recovery of 300 liters of countrymade liquor and criminal antecedents, and held it lacks jurisdiction to entertain anticipatory bail petitions under Section 76(2) of the 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