Brij Mohan Tiwari @ Chhotu Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70407 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2024 Thana- DURAULI District- Siwan ====================================================== Brij Mohan Tiwari @ Chhotu Tiwary Son of Awadh Kishor Tiwari Resident of Village - Tiyar, P.S.- Asaon, District - Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Darauli P.S. Case No. 28 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant came in contact with the petitioner Brij Mohan Tiwari @ Chhotu Tiwari due to family relations and remained in contact for about three months. It is alleged that during this period, the petitioner called her to Siwan, forcibly established physical relations, prepared a video and later threatened her. Subsequently, a panchayati was held in which the petitioner allegedly assured not to repeat such act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70407 of 2025(3) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the statement of the victim, recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, itself shows that the relationship between the petitioner and the victim was consensual. The victim is admittedly a major. He has also submitted that the Mukhiya and Sarpanch, before whom the Panchayati was conducted, were not examined.
5. The victim, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, has stated that her matrimonial relationship has been ruined because the petitioner made a video viral and sent it to her husband's mobile number. As a consequence, her husband has left her.
6. In my view, the petitioner does not deserve the privileges of bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T