Mahaveer Sharan Pahadiya vs U.P State Government — 365/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2),317(2),3(5). Disposed: Contested--REJECT on 24th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPAU010010262026
Filing Number
989/2026
Filing Date
10-Mar-2026
Registration No
365/2026
Registration Date
10-Mar-2026
Court
District and Session Judge
Judge
11-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya
Decision Date
24-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECT
Last updated 06-May-2026
FIR Details
FIR Number
543
Police Station
Auraiya
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Mahaveer Sharan Pahadiya
Adv. Advocate
Respondent(s)
-
1.U.P State Government
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Mar-2026
Bail OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Auriya, rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Mahavir Sharan Pahadia in a GST fraud case (Crime No. 543/2025 under BNS Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 3(5)). The court found that the applicant allegedly created fake companies with forged documents, fraudulently claimed ₹229.50 lakh in Input Tax Credit (ITC), and caused revenue loss to the government. Though the applicant argued he was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's statement and lacked criminal history, the court held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy not granted routinely for grave offenses, and dismissed the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya
-
18-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya
-
12-Mar-2026
Hearing
Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya
-
10-Mar-2026
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
10-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 365/2026
Court Decision Summary The Additional Sessions Judge, Auriya, rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Mahavir Sharan Pahadia in a GST fraud case (Crime No. 543/2025 under BNS Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 3(5)). The court found that the applicant allegedly created fake companies with forged documents, fraudulently claimed ₹229.50 lakh in Input Tax Credit (ITC), and caused revenue loss to the government. Though the applicant argued he was falsely implicated based on a co-accused's statement and lacked criminal history, the court held that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy not granted routinely for grave offenses, and dismissed the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts