Patna High Court
Avinash TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the petition was rejected.
Summary
Avinash Tiwari, a delivery agent for Amazon, applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR dated 2019 alleged his involvement in delivering dummy iPhones, charging him under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended he merely received damaged phones and handed them over, asserting he was a scapegoat for the local office's mishandling. The State argued that the petitioner was the main person who delivered and later retrieved the mobiles, and highlighted the supervision note of the Sub‑Divisional Police Officer confirming the case against him. The Court examined the delay of seven years between the FIR and the bail application and found no sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition was rejected, with the Court directing the petitioner to surrender within four weeks for further proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR dated 2019.
- Whether the delay of seven years between the FIR and the bail application defeats the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged role as a delivery agent amounts to participation in offences under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- fraud
- cheating
- criminal conspiracy
- delivery agent
- staleness of FIR
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12759 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-950 Year-2019 Thana- ARA NAWADA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Avinash Tiwari S/O Mantu Tiwari R/O Village- Gram-Berain, P.O- Khutaha,
Berain P.S.- Aara Nawada, Distt.- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bharan Bhushan.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Ara Nawada P.S. Case No. 950 of 2019 for the offence
registered under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant (the
lawyer working for the Amazon company and is now dead) on
instructions, lodged the FIR alleging that five orders were
placed for delivery of Apple iPhones and was delivered near
IGIMS, Pillar no. 17, Patna. However, all of them complained it
to be of damaged condition whereafter this petitioner who
served as the delivery agent for the Amazon returned it. When it
reached the Hyderabad office, it was found that these are
dummy mobiles. Accordingly, the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12759 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
being the delivery boy, was made a scapegoat, the petitioner
diligently received the damaged mobiles and handed it over to
the Ara office and actually, the problem has been created by the
local office while sending it to the Hyderabad office. He has no
role to play in the matter.
5. Mr. Bharat Bhushan represents the State and he has
taken this Court to learned Sessions Judge order to show that he
is the main person who delivered the mobiles and also took it
back but actually, the dummy mobiles reached Hyderabad
office.
6. He has further taken this Court to paragraph 29 of
the case diary which is the supervision note of the Sub-
Divisional Police Officer, Sadar, Ara to show that he has found
the case to be true against this petitioner. The last submission is
that the FIR is of the year 2019 and seven years later, the present
anticipatory bail application.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
and the allegation that has come against the petitioner, certainly
no case of anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The petition accordingly stands rejected allowing
the petitioner to surrender/ file appropriate petition if he thinks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12759 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
that there is/are involvement of other persons who have been
left out while singling out him as an accused in the present case.
9. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a
period of four weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take
up the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…