Mantu Tiwari @ Maruti Nandan Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2026

    0
    43
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Patna High Court – Orders

    Mantu Tiwari @ Maruti Nandan Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2026

    Author: Satyavrat Verma

    Bench: Satyavrat Verma

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3879 of 2025
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- SC/ST District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
                     ======================================================
                     Mantu Tiwari @ Maruti Nandan Tiwari S/o Prem Chandra Tiwari Resident of
                     village- Kabar, P.S- Bhabua, District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
    
                                                                                        ... ... Appellant/s
                                                            Versus
               1.    The State of Bihar
               2.    Priti Devi W/o Binod Singh Kharwar R/o vill - Kanhanar, P.S.- Adhaura,
                     Distt.- Kaimur (Bhabhua)
    
                                                               ... ... Respondent/s
                     ======================================================
                     Appearance :
                     For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
                     For the Respondent/s     :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
                     ======================================================
                     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                           ORAL ORDER
    
    4   17-03-2026

    1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

    learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.

    SPONSORED

    2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

    Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST

    Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide

    order dated 30.08.2025 in A.B.P. No. 1711 of 2025 passed by

    the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

    S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with

    SC/ST Bhabua P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 registered for the

    offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 384, 354, 406,

    420, 34, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as
    Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3879 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
    2/4

    Sections 3(1), 3(2), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

    and 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act read with Sections 7/12 of the

    Prevention of Corruption Act.

    3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

    appellant is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted

    that appellant was working in the office of the Circle Officer,

    Adhaura as an agent of the Karmachari, Rishikant Dubey for

    making entries in revenue records. It is further submitted that in

    sum and substance the allegation is that informant had gone for

    getting the land mutated in his name when Rishikant Dubey

    demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- which the informant gave

    and thereafter an amount of Rs. 22,000/- was also given to the

    appellant apart from other amount as detailed in the FIR, as

    such, the informant had to part with Rs. 88,000/-, but then the

    land was not mutated.

    4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

    appellant submits that Rishikant Dubey had approached this

    Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Appeal (SJ)

    No. 2833 of 2024 and the same came to be allowed by an order

    dated 11.11.2025 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench, as

    such, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks anticipatory

    bail for the appellant based on parity. It is also submitted that
    Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3879 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
    3/4

    not a single penny ever came to be deposited in the account of

    the appellant.

    5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand

    Paswan, opposes the appeal and submits that Rishikant Dubey is

    a government servant and as such, has been granted the

    privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that since an

    FIR has been instituted against Rishikant Dubey he will be

    subjected to departmental proceeding, but then as far as this

    appellant is concerned, he is not a government servant rather

    was working in the office of the Circle Officer, Adhaura and

    was working for Rishikant Dubey and allegation against him is

    of accepting bribe amount of Rs. 22,000/-. It is next submitted

    that corruption in Circle Office is rampant. It is next submitted

    that a submission has been made by the learned counsel

    appearing on behalf of the appellant that not a single penny of

    the bribe amount was deposited in the account of the appellant,

    but then it is submitted that whether a person who takes bribe

    will deposit the amount in his account. It is next submitted that

    during the course of investigation as recorded in the order

    impugned, it has come that informant sent the money through, a

    Cafe Account in Hyderabad which was in the name of

    Hananullaman Molla and the money was received in account of
    Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3879 of 2025(4) dt.17-03-2026
    4/4

    another Cafe of Ajay Kumar R/o Ward No. 18, Bhabhua who

    also runs a small Internet Cafe and provides facility of online

    money transfer and the said money was received by Mantu

    Tiwari i.e. appellant. It is further submitted that statement of

    Ajay Kumar was also recorded u/s 161 of CrPC and u/s 164 of

    CrPC and in both statements he has disclosed that Mantu Tiwari

    used to receive money in cash at his cafe received by him

    through online transfer on behalf of Rishikant Dubey. The

    learned Special PP also submits that investigation in the case is

    continuing.

    6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

    the Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal.

    7. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands

    rejected.

    (Satyavrat Verma, J)
    Rishabh/-

    U      T
     



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here