Patna High Court
Mantu Tiwari @ Maruti Nandan TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; anticipatory bail is not granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Mantu Tiwari, was charged under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and several IPC offences for allegedly receiving a bribe of Rs. 22,000 in connection with a land mutation dispute. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing his clean antecedents, that a co‑accused government servant had been granted bail, and that no money was ever deposited in his account. The State opposed, contending that Tiwari is not a government servant, that the investigation shows he received money through internet cafés, and that the case is still under investigation. The High Court examined the applicability of Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act and the principle of parity, and found no merit to grant bail. Consequently, the Court rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s refusal of anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
- Whether the principle of parity with a co‑accused government servant warrants granting bail to a non‑government servant.
- Whether the alleged receipt of bribe money and ongoing investigation preclude anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 164
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 384, 406, 420, 504, 506
- Prevention of Corruption Act — s. 12, 7
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii), 3(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- SC/ST Act
- bribery
- corruption
- parity principle
- non‑government servant
- criminal procedure
Judgment
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.
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
Checking your session…