The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail plea of CGST Superintendent Anil Kumar Tiwari in a CBI case involving allegations of a bribery conspiracy linked to GST search proceedings at Jhansi.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi has observed that a public servant need not personally receive the bribe amount for criminal liability to arise if material on record prima facie establishes participation in the larger conspiracy.
The matter arose from a CBI FIR registered in December 2025 against several individuals, including CGST officers and private persons. According to the prosecution, officials posted with CGST Jhansi allegedly acted in concert with intermediaries and businessmen to obtain illegal gratification in exchange for extending favourable treatment in tax violation matters. Searches had been conducted at the premises of two firms where substantial undeclared stock and documents relating to alleged tax evasion were reportedly found.
The prosecution case stated that following the searches, efforts were allegedly initiated to settle the tax matter through an advocate acting as an intermediary. The CBI claimed that negotiations for illegal gratification began soon after detection of discrepancies and that discussions allegedly revolved around a demand initially touching ₹1.5 crore before the amount was reduced. According to the charge-sheet narrative placed before the Court, conversations intercepted during the investigation indicated references to quantified amounts and alleged involvement of senior officials in decision-making regarding the final settlement amount.
The Court noted allegations relating to the delivery of ₹70 lakh at a restaurant where the applicant was alleged to have met co-accused persons. The prosecution claimed that after the meeting, money was transferred into a vehicle belonging to another accused officer and CBI officials intercepted the vehicle and recovered ₹69.94 lakh. The applicant was subsequently intercepted near Jhansi Railway Station and later arrested on allegations of participating in the conspiracy.
The charge-sheet also alleged procedural irregularities in the handling of documents seized during GST searches. According to the prosecution, seizure records allegedly contained blank spaces, page counts of documents were not recorded and mandatory post-search reports were not filed within the prescribed time. It was alleged that such actions were carried out to subsequently use the material as leverage for demanding illegal gratification.
Another significant aspect considered by the Court related to recovery of documents allegedly removed from official custody. The prosecution relied upon statements claiming that sacks containing records connected with the searched firms had been stored in a room near the applicant’s residence. The Court also noted the statement of the applicant’s driver regarding movement and storage of sacks at the residence.
On behalf of the applicant, senior counsel argued that another officer was the custodian of the records and allegedly handled the bribe amount. It was also submitted that any lapses in search procedures may at best amount to disciplinary misconduct rather than criminal culpability. The defence further emphasized that the applicant had no criminal history, investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had already been filed, and trial involving numerous witnesses would take substantial time.
The CBI, however, opposed bail and argued that the applicant had an active role in the entire operation, had participated in meetings connected with transfer of money and remained in continuous communication with other accused persons. The prosecution further contended that the bribe amount represented shares meant for multiple accused individuals.
The court observed that the material collected during investigation prima facie established involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences. The Court specifically noted that public servants who do not directly accept bribe money may still be prosecuted and convicted if their role in the conspiracy is otherwise established. The Court further observed that the case was not merely one involving procedural lapses in official duties but one requiring trial on allegations of corruption and conspiracy.
The Court held that the facts did not justify exercise of discretion in favour of granting bail and dismissed the application.
Case Details
Case Title: Anil Kumar Tiwari Versus CBI
Case No.: CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 2140 of 2026
Date: 13.05.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Pranjal Krishna, Suhaib Ashraf
Counsel For Respondent: Aakash Prasad
