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
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
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
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 12-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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
Explore other courts