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

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

989/2026

Filing Date

10-03-2026

Registration No

365/2026

Registration Date

10-03-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

11-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya

Decision Date

24th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--REJECT

FIR Details

FIR Number

543

Police Station

Auraiya

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318(4),338,336(3),340(2),317(2),3(5)

Petitioner(s)

Mahaveer Sharan Pahadiya

Adv. Advocate

Respondent(s)

U.P State Government

Hearing History

Judge: 11-Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court No - 1 Auraiya

24-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

Hearing

12-03-2026

Hearing

10-03-2026

Hearing

Final Orders / Judgements

24-03-2026
Bail Order

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

District and Session Judge All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case