Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar Through The Special … on 17 June, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85368 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2024 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna
======================================================
Arvind Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Sitaram Tiwari R/O Village - Keshari
Nagar, Post Office- Barka Gaon, Police Station - Karja, District -
Muzaffarpur, At Present Block Education Office (BEO), Block Patahi,
District- East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Special Vigilance Unit, Patna. Bihar
2. Santosh Kumar S/O Late Yogendra Prasad R/O Village and P.O-
Parsauni Kapur, Dushad Toli, Patahi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Ranvijay Narain Singh, Advocate
Mr.Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Manish Kumar singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the S.V.U. : Mr.Rana Vikram Singh, Law Officer
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 17-06-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rana
Vikram Singh, learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the
Department of Vigilance.
2. This application has been preferred under section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the
"Cr.P.C.") for quashing the order dated 31.05.2024 as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
2/15
passed by the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in
Special Case No. 2 of 2025, arising out of S.V.U. P.S. Case
No. 1 of 2024, whereby and whereunder learned trial court
has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner for
the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'P.C. Act') and also to
quash the order dated 12.12.2024 (through I.A. No. 01 of
2025), through which learned Vigilance Court framed charge
under section 7 of the P.C. Act against the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution as per First
Information Report (in short, the 'F.I.R.') state that the
informant namely, Santosh Kumar (opposite party no. 2)
made his application dated 08.02.2024 to the Superintendent
of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar, Patna, alleging therein
that he is posted as Headmaster of N.P.S. Parsonikpur
(Dusadh Toli) and the Block Education Officer, Patahi
(petitioner), had been demanding a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) from him for allotment of funds relating to SSA
Grant and Mid-day Meal. The petitioner was allegedly
threatening the informant regarding the initiation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
3/15
departmental proceedings if the informant failed to meet the
said demand.
4. The aforesaid application was duly endorsed to the
Sub-Inspector of Police for the purpose of causing an inquiry
into the veracity of the allegations set forth therein. The Sub-
Inspector of Police made his report dated 08.02.2024 to the
Superintendent of Police to the effect that the allegations
against the petitioner were correct. Accordingly, S.V.U. P.S.
Case No. 01 of 2024 dated 12.02.2024 was registered
against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the
P.C. Act.
5. It is a trap case where the petitioner was caught
red-handed with cash of Rs. 10,000/- by the raiding team of
the Special Vigilance Unit (in short the 'S.V.U.'), Patna, while
he was receiving an alleged bribe amount from the informant.
6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that upon bare perusal
of the initial complaint, it would reveal that it was filed on
08.02.2024
to the Superintendent of Police, S.V.U. at Patna,
where no time is mentioned. The said complaint was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
4/15
thereafter endorsed to the Sub-Inspector of Police for
necessary verification, which was duly carried out on the same
day, and the concerned officer submitted his verification
report on 08.02.2024 itself. It is submitted that by any
measure of human probability, the verification of the
allegations and the submission of the report on the very same
day is highly improbable, considering that the distance
between Patna and Patahi exceeds 200 Kms. It is submitted
that the present case was lodged out of ulterior and oblique
motives to tarnish the image of the petitioner. In view of the
facts as being superior authority, petitioner checked the
malpractices of the informant qua mid-day meal.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that after registering
an F.I.R. on 12.02.2024, S.V.U. picked up two employees of
BUDCO, Rajapur Pul, Patna, to be witnesses of the trap and
thereafter the S.V.U. team reached Bela PACS Godown,
Patahi, where a preliminary memorandum was prepared on
12.02.2024, whereafter the S.V.U. team proceeded to the
office of the petitioner and reached there at 13:45 ‘O’ Clock.
8. Mr. Singh further submitted that, as per the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
5/15
allegation, the informant after taking Rs. 8000/- from his
right pocket, offered the same to the petitioner, which the
petitioner accepted by his right hand and kept in the back
pocket of his trousers. It is submitted that this admitted
position straightway contradicts the fact that the recovery
memorandum shows the left hand of the petitioner when
washed with a solution of sodium carbonate, turned pink. It is
submitted that, when the alleged bribe was not received with
the left hand, the claim of the left hand having turned pink
stands vitiated, thereby casting serious doubt upon the
veracity of the allegation levelled against the petitioner,
particularly in the backdrop of pre-existing official disputes
and differences.
9. It is submitted that the necessary memorandum
was not prepared at the actual place of trap/recovery; rather,
the same was drawn up at the premises of Gagan Hotel
situated on the National Highway at Chakiya in the presence
of the very same witnesses who had been brought from
Patna. It is submitted that the witnesses, namely, Anil Kumar
and Ajay Ranjan, both employees of BUDCO, Patna cannot be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
6/15
said to be independent witnesses, as they were brought by
the team of S.V.U., Patna itself, and, therefore, the entire
trapping memorandum becomes doubtful, which is the calyx
of the allegation. It is further submitted that S.V.U. had
neither taken the signature of the petitioner on the recovery
memorandum nor supplied the copy of the same to the
petitioner, which further makes the raid doubtful.
10. It is submitted that the petitioner being a Block
Education Officer, was not the disciplinary authority of the
complainant, who is the Headmaster of the Govt. School,
though he is the superior authority. It is also pointed out that
generally the office of the petitioner marks the presence of
10-12 employees, but none of them were made witnesses of
the occurrence.
11. It is submitted that till the submission of charge-
sheet no prosecution sanction was granted against the
petitioner despite the request of S.V.U. on 04.04.2024, and,
therefore, charge-sheet was submitted in anticipation of
sanction order. It is submitted that, ignoring all such facts in a
very mechanical manner, the concerned learned Vigilance
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
7/15
Judge took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act as well as under
sections 109 and 120B of the I.P.C.
12. In support of his submission, learned senior
counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
13. Mr. Rana Vikram Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of S.V.U., Patna submitted that the
petitioner raised his defence version by disputing several
factual aspects, which cannot be considered at this stage, as it
is a well established principle of law that the probative value
of the material on record cannot be gone into at the time of
framing of charge, the court must apply its judicial mind on
the material placed on the record and must be satisfied
whether the commission of offence by the accused was
possible.
14. It is submitted by Mr. Singh that at this stage, the
court has to proceed with an assumption that the materials
brought on record by the prosecution are true and to evaluate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
8/15
the said materials and documents with a view to find out
whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face
value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting
the offence. It is submitted that a mini trial at this stage is not
possible.
15. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the S.V.U. further
submitted that the chemical analysis test and the
conversation of the petitioner with the informant are such
materials, on the basis of which it cannot be said that the
allegation against the petitioner is “groundless” and,
moreover, the charge already framed against the petitioner by
learned vigilance court and the trial of this case already
commenced with.
16. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh, learned
counsel relied upon the legal report of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through State of Tamil Nadu by
Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Vs.
N. Suresh Rajan and Others [(2014) 11 SCC 709];
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap [(2021)
11 SCC 191 and State Represented by Inspector of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
9/15
Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam Vs. Eluri Srinivasa
Chakravarthi and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1215].
17. It would be apposite to reproduce para 29 of N.
Suresh Rajan case (supra), which reads as under:
“29. We have bestowed our consideration to the rival
submissions and the submissions made by Mr Ranjit
Kumar commend us. True it is that at the time of
consideration of the applications for discharge, the
court cannot act as a mouthpiece of the prosecution or
act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to
find out whether or not the allegations made are
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is
trite that at the stage of consideration of an application
for discharge, the court has to proceed with an
assumption that the materials brought on record by the
prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials
and documents with a view to find out whether the
facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting
the alleged offence. At this stage, probative value of
the materials has to be gone into and the court is not
expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the
materials would not warrant a conviction. In our
opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there
is a ground for presuming that the offence has been
committed and not whether a ground for convicting the
accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the
court thinks that the accused might have committed
the offence on the basis of the materials on record on
its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for
conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that
the accused has committed the offence. The law does
not permit a mini trial at this stage.”
18. It would be further apposite to reproduce para
11.2 of Ashok Kumar Kashyap case (supra) for better
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
10/15
understanding of the case, which reads as under:
11.2. In the recent decision of this Court in M.R.
Hiremath [State of Karnataka v. M.R. Hiremath, (2019)
7 SCC 515 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 109 : (2019) 2 SCC
(L&S) 380] , one of us (D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) speaking
for the Bench has observed and held in para 25 as
under : (SCC p. 526)“25. The High Court [M.R. Hiremath v. State, 2017
SCC OnLine Kar 4970] ought to have been cognizant
of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an
application for discharge under the provisions of
Section 239 CrPC. The parameters which govern the
exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in
several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle
of law that at the stage of considering an application
for discharge the court must proceed on the
assumption that the material which has been brought
on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate
the material in order to determine whether the facts
emerging from the material, taken on its face value,
disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to
constitute the offence. In State of T.N. v. N. Suresh
Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11
SCC 709 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529 : (2014) 2 SCC
(L&S) 721] , adverting to the earlier decisions on the
subject, this Court held : (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29)’29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials
has to be gone into and the court is not expected to
go deep into the matter and hold that the materials
would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
11/15needs to be considered is whether there is a ground
for presuming that the offence has been committed
and not whether a ground for convicting the accused
has been made out. To put it differently, if the court
thinks that the accused might have committed the
offence on the basis of the materials on record on its
probative value, it can frame the charge; though for
conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion
that the accused has committed the offence. The law
does not permit a mini trial at this stage.’ “
19. In the aforesaid context, it would also be apposite
to reproduce para 24 & 25 of Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi
case (supra), which reads as under:
“24. The decisions of this Court in Satish Mehra v.
Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766] and State of
Bihar v. Ramesh Singh [(1977 4 SCC 39] took
divergent views on the competence of a special
court/magistrate to look at material other than the
final report read with documents filed by the
prosecution in terms of section 173 of the CrPC. The
issue was referred to a three-judge bench for decision
in State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi [(2005) 1
SCC 568]. The full bench in a detailed examination of
the statutory scheme and also the precedents on the
point has held that the accused at the stage of
framing of charge does not have a right to file
material or documents. It is apt to excerpt the
following paragraphs from the said decision.
“8. What is the meaning of the expression “the
record of the case” as used in Section 227 of the
Code. Though the word “case” is not defined in the
Code but Section 209 throws light on the
interpretation to be placed on the said word.
Section 209 which deals with the commitment of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
12/15case to the Court of Session when offence is
triable exclusively by it, inter alia, provides that
when it appears to the Magistrate that the offence
is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he
shall commit “the case” to the Court of Session
and send to that court “the record of the case” and
the document and articles, if any, which are to be
produced in evidence and notify the Public
Prosecutor of the commitment of the case to the
Court of Session. It is evident that the record of
the case and documents submitted therewith as
postulated in Section 227 relate to the case and
the documents referred in Section 209. That is the
plain meaning of Section 227 read with Section
209 of the Code. No provision in the Code grants
to the accused any right to file any material or
document at the stage of framing of charge. That
right is granted only at the stage of the trial.
15. In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan
Maharaj (1997) 4 SCC 393 it was held that at
Sections 227 and 228 stage the court is required
to evaluate the material and documents on record
with a view to finding out if the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the
existence of all the ingredients constituting the
alleged offence. The court may, for this limited
purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected
even at that initial stage to accept all that the
prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is
opposed to common sense or the broad
probabilities of the case.”
18. We are unable to accept the aforesaid
contention. The reliance on Articles 14 and 21 is
misplaced. The scheme of the Code and object
with which Section 227 was incorporated and
Sections 207 and 207-A omitted have already
been noticed. Further, at the stage of framing of
charge roving and fishing inquiry is impermissible
If the contention of the accused is accepted, there
would be a mini-trial at the stage of framing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
13/15
charge. That would defeat the object of the Code.
It is well settled that at the stage of framing of
charge the defence of the accused cannot be put
forth. The acceptance of the contention of the
learned counsel for the accused would mean
permitting the accused to adduce his defence at
the stage of framing of charge and for
examination thereof at that stage which is against
the criminal jurisprudence. By way of illustration,
it may be noted that the plea of alibi taken by the
accused may have to be examined at the stage of
framing of charge if the contention of the accused
is accepted despite the well-settled proposition
that it is for the accused to lead evidence at the
trial to sustain such a plea. The accused would be
entitled to produce materials and documents in
proof of such a plea at the stage of framing of the
charge, in case we accept the contention put forth
on behalf of the accused. That has never been the
intention of the law well settled for over one
hundred years now. It is in this light that the
provision about hearing the submissions of the
accused as postulated by Section 227 is to be
understood. It only means hearing the
submissions of the accused on the record of the
case as filed by the prosecution and documents
submitted therewith and nothing more. The
expression “hearing the submissions of the
accused” cannot mean opportunity to file material
to be granted to the accused and thereby changing
the settled law. At the stage of framing of charge
hearing the submissions of the accused has to be
confined to the material produced by the police.
(emphasis supplied)
25. Recently, in State of Rajasthan v. Swarn Singh
@ Baba [Criminal Appeal No. 856 of 2024 ], to which
one of us, Justice Pankaj Mithal, was a part of, relied
on Debendra Nath Padhi (supra) to hold that the
accused cannot and does not have the right to invoke
section 91 of the CrPC at the time of framing of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
14/15
charge. Under the statutory scheme of the CrPC,
sections 227/239 are positioned in the midway of
continuing or abandoning the prosecution if no case is
discernible from the chargesheet and documents. The
common belief of the prosecution/complainant is that
the report filed warrants trial and conviction, which is
to be balanced by the magistrate against the belief of
the accused that every prosecution initiated is false
and nothing short of an abuse of process. The
magistrate, at this stage, by exercising the jurisdiction
within the parameters set out by sections 227/239 of
the CrPC, decides whether the narrative of the
complainant warrants prosecution/trial or the accused
is entitled to be discharged. The discretion is exercised
in the manner stipulated by sections 227/239. The
inner and outer limits of the discretion under these
sections are no more res integra, and a few of the
precedents having a bearing on the conspectus of the
case are referred to hereunder.
25.1 In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P.
[(2013) 11 SCC 476], it is observed that
inconsistency in material produced by the prosecution
cannot be looked into for discharge of the accused in
the absence of a full-fledged trial.
25.2 Reiterating the dictum in Debendra Nath Padhi
again in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rakesh Mishra
[(2015) 13 SCC 8.], it has been held that only the
chargesheet along with accompanying materials are to
be considered at the stage of framing of charges, so
as to satisfy the existence of a case for trial.
25.3 Further, in State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar
Kashyap [(2021) 11 SCC 191], this Court reiterates
beyond debate that defence on merits is not to be
considered at the stage of framing of
charges/discharge.”
20. Taking note of the aforesaid factual and legal
submission, it appears to this Court that the transcript of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85368 of 2024 dt.17-06-2025
15/15
conversation between the petitioner and the informant and
also turning left or right hand pink upon chemical analysis, as
discussed above, along with the submission qua malicious
approach due to official dispute and differences, are such
issues which cannot be looked into at this stage. Charges are
already framed against the petitioner, and the trial of the case
has already begun. It is also a settled position of law that the
defence version of the petitioner/accused cannot be
considered at the stage of framing of charge to avoid a mini-
trial.
21. In view of aforesaid, the present petition appears
devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
22. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the learned
trial court/court concerned forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 29.04.2025 Uploading Date 18.06.2025 Transmission Date 18.06.2025