State Government vs SHAILENDRA PACHAURI — 864/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 316(2),318(4),338,336(3),340(2),61(2),. Disposed: Uncontested--Not Press on 18th March 2026.
Bail Application
CNR: UPMT010018242026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1632/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
864/2026
Registration Date
26-02-2026
Court
District and Session Judge, Mathura
Judge
4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Decision Date
18th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Not Press
FIR Details
FIR Number
603
Police Station
KOTWALI
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State Government
Respondent(s)
SHAILENDRA PACHAURI
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Addl. District Judge Court No. 3
Disposed
Hearing
Hearing
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 18-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 10-03-2026 | Hearing | |
| 26-02-2026 | Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Shailendra Pachauri, an employee of SMFG India Home Finance Company Ltd, who was accused of conspiring with other company employees and a loan agent to defraud the company by creating fake KYC documents and forged salary slips to illegally disburse loans totaling ₹79,90,000 to four fabricated borrowers. The court found the charges serious, involving organized financial fraud against a legitimate financial institution, and determined there was no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail, as the applicant failed to establish any legitimate reason for being falsely implicated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Additional Sessions Court, Mathura rejected the anticipatory bail petition of Shailendra Pachauri, an employee of SMFG India Home Finance Company Ltd, who was accused of conspiring with other company employees and a loan agent to defraud the company by creating fake KYC documents and forged salary slips to illegally disburse loans totaling ₹79,90,000 to four fabricated borrowers. The court found the charges serious, involving organized financial fraud against a legitimate financial institution, and determined there was no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail, as the applicant failed to establish any legitimate reason for being falsely implicated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts