Vinay Kumar Tiwary @ Vinay Kumar Tiwary Vs State of Jharkhand

¶1

2026:JHHC:21039

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

B.A. No. 4027 of 2026

¶4

Vinay Kumar Tiwary @ Vinay Tiwary, S/o:- Sri Yadav Lal Tiwary

¶5

… … Petitioner

¶6

Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party ---

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. ---

¶8

05 /17.07.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶9

2. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed during the court proceedings, which is taken on record.

¶10

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2026 in connection with A.C.B. Jamshedpur P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, registered under Sections 7(a)/12 of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, now pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum- Special Judge A.C.B, Chaibasa.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the allegation, demand was made by the co-accused namely, Pritam Kumar Achariya and at best, the petitioner played the role of being an instrument in the alleged offence. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 24.03.2026. The charge-sheet has been submitted on 18.05.2026, but no sanction for prosecution has been received so far.

¶12

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the coaccused namely, Pritam Kumar Achariya who had made the demand for bribe, has been enlarged on bail in B.A. No. 4434 of 2026 vide order dated 26.05.2026.

¶13

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that Pritam Kumar Achariya has been enlarged on bail primarily on the ground that no cash was recovered from the possession of Pritam Kumar Achariya, rather there has been no recovery from the possession of Pritam

¶14

2026:JHHC:21039

¶15

Achariya who is just a co-accused in this case. She has submitted that Rs. 5 lakhs tainted money was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed bringing on record two cheques of Rs. 20 lakhs each signed by the informant and his family member which were found in possession of the petitioner at the time of trap. She submits that the said cheques were blank and apparently, that were by way of security so that the bribe money is paid.

¶16

7. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner was caught red handed with bribe money and aforesaid two blank cheques were also recovered from his possession, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and hence, this bail application is rejected.

¶17

8. So far as the bail of co-accused namely, Pritam Kumar Achariya is concerned, admittedly no recovery was made from the said coaccused and therefore, the case of the petitioner stands on different footing.

¶18

9. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completion of custody of one year.

¶19

10. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the learned court concerned through “FAX/email”.

¶20

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶21

Date of Order:17.07.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading:20.07.2026

¶22

2

Vinay Kumar Tiwary @ Vinay Kumar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Tiwary @ Vinay Kumar Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abul Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Brahmdeo Das Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunj Bihari Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chief General Manager Land and Revenue Central Coalfield Ltd. Thro Its General Manager (Legal) Ccl, Vs Seraj Ansari

Ram Kumar Ray Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand