ANKIT JOHARI vs State of UP Advocate - DGC Criminal — 449/2026

Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 61(2),318(4),338,336(3),340(2). Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

Bail Application

CNR: UPEW010015192026

Filing Number

1447/2026

Filing Date

26-Feb-2026

Registration No

449/2026

Registration Date

26-Feb-2026

Court

District and Session Judge

Judge

3-IInd A.D.J./Spl. J (Sc/ST, Prev. of Atrocitiy Act)

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 03-Apr-2026

FIR Details

FIR Number

296

Police Station

JASWANT NAGAR

Year

2025

Acts & Sections

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 61(2),318(4),338,336(3),340(2)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ANKIT JOHARI

    Adv. KULDEEP SINGH YADAV

  2. 2.SHIVA JAUHARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.State of UP Advocate - DGC Criminal

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    copy of JudgementView PDF

    The court rejected the bail application of accused Ankit Johari and Shiva Johari in a GST fraud case. The accused were involved in creating fictitious firms (Bharat Building Material and Lema Enterprises) to fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately ₹201.30 lakhs by filing false GST returns, and the court found the charges serious with substantial state revenue loss, making bail unsuitable under the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    IInd A.D.J./Spl. J (Sc/ST, Prev. of Atrocitiy Act)

  4. 26-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 26-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 449/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the bail application of accused Ankit Johari and Shiva Johari in a GST fraud case. The accused were involved in creating fictitious firms (Bharat Building Material and Lema Enterprises) to fraudulently claim Input Tax Credit (ITC) of approximately ₹201.30 lakhs by filing false GST returns, and the court found the charges serious with substantial state revenue loss, making bail unsuitable under the circumstances. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case