Rajendra Kumar Mangtani Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corruption Bureau Lko. (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed the bail application of Rajendra Kumar Mangtani @ Raju Mangtani, aged 61 years, in RC0062025A033 dated 30.12.2025, registered under Section 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR named seven persons, including the applicant, in connection with allegations of corrupt activities involving CGST officials, private persons and an advocate acting as middleman.
According to the prosecution case, CGST, Jhansi officials searched the premises and godowns of M/s Jai Ambey Plywood and M/s Jai Durga Hardware on 18.12.2025 and allegedly detected substantial undeclared stock and documents relating to tax violations. The prosecution alleged that the officials, including Prabha Bhandari, IRS, Deputy Commissioner, Anil Kumar Tiwari and Ajay Sharma, Superintendents, acted in conspiracy with Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, and demanded Rs.1.5 crore for settling the matters. Rs.70 lakh was allegedly arranged by co-accused Tejpal Mangtani, and the applicant was alleged to have carried the cash to Naresh Kumar Gupta.
On 30.12.2025, the FIR was lodged. The search memo recorded that the applicant carried a white cotton bag containing cash, which was subsequently transferred by Naresh Kumar Gupta to the vehicle of Ajay Sharma. The recovered amount was counted as Rs.69,94,000. The CBI filed a charge-sheet on 27.02.2026 against eight accused persons, including two firms. The trial court had not taken cognizance of the offences when the bail application was considered.
The applicant submitted that he had been in custody for six and a half months, the investigation was complete, no recovery had been made from him, he was not a partner of either firm, and the money had allegedly been arranged by his brother Tejpal Mangtani. He also relied on his age, absence of criminal history and the expected length of trial, with 47 named witnesses proposed by the CBI. He argued that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not substantively apply to him as he was not a public servant. Regarding Section 8, he contended that the prosecution case itself indicated that the public servants had initiated the alleged scheme to extract money rather than being induced by private persons.
The Court noted that it was not appropriate to decide in the bail order the elaborate submissions concerning Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leaving them open for consideration by the trial court. It examined the conversations relied upon by the CBI and observed that none specifically stated that the applicant was going to offer a bribe to induce or reward a public servant for improper performance of official duty.
The Court observed that, prima facie, the prosecution case indicated that the public servants had allegedly initiated the conspiracy and compelled the private persons to pay money to settle the matters. The applicant was not a partner of the firms and, according to the prosecution case, Tejpal Mangtani had arranged the Rs.70 lakh and instructed the applicant to carry it to Naresh Kumar Gupta.
Considering these circumstances, along with the applicant’s age, absence of previous criminal history, six-and-a-half-month custody, completion of investigation and the fact that trial had not commenced and involved 47 proposed witnesses, the Court found sufficient grounds for bail. The application was accordingly allowed, subject to conditions that the applicant would not tamper with evidence, pressurize prosecution witnesses, and would appear on every date fixed by the trial court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Sri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for respondent C.B.I. has filed supplementary counter affidavit today in Court and the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Aakash Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent C.B.I.
3. By means of the instant bail application the applicant seeks enlargement of bail in RC0062025A033, dated 30.12.2025, under Section 61(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-CBI, ACB, District-Lucknow.
4. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 30-122025 against seven named persons, including the applicant, Raju Mangtani @ Rajendra Mangtani, who is mentioned at serial number six as Raju Mangtani and is one of the owners of M/s Jai Durga Hardware, R/o H. No. 840/7, Madhu Vihar Colony, Mauranipur, Civil Lines, Jhansi, U.P., stating that, a reliable source had informed that some public servants of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Jhansi, were indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with various private persons and they take bribe in exchange of favoring them in making out cases against them for tax violations.
6. Co-accused Prabha Bhandari, IRS, Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent, and Ajay Sharma, Superintendent, were indulging in such corrupt activities in criminal conspiracy in connivance with Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, who was acting as a middleman on behalf of several firms against whom cases have been made out for tax violations.
7. On 18-12-2025, a team comprising of the aforesaid officers of CGST, Jhansi, had conducted searches at office premises and godowns of M/s Jai Ambey Plywood and M/s Jai Durga Hardware, and had seized a huge undeclared stock of material and documents related to tax violation activities. Co-accused Lokesh Tolani, owner of M/s Jai Ambey Plywood, and the applicant Raju Mangtani and co-accused Tejpal Mangtani, owners of M/s Jai Durga Hardware, were trying to get their matter settled through Naresh Kumar Gupta, middleman, who had contacted Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent, CGST, Jhansi, during the searches and had offered him to settle the matter immediately in lieu of illegal gratification as per their demand.
8. Anil Kumar Tiwari informed Naresh Kumar Gupta that there was a lot of undeclared stock of material and incriminating evidences against the parties were found. Anil Kumar Tiwari also informed that “Madam” Prabha Bhandari was present at the premises being searched and he assured that he would tender possible favours.
9. On 19-12-2025, the applicant and Lokesh Tolani had visited the residence of Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent, who facilitated them to collect the keys of their offices/godowns from his office. On 22-12-2025, Naresh Kumar Gupta visited the residence of Ajay Sharma, Superintendent, along with co-accused Tejpal Mangtani. On 23-12-2025, Tejpal Mangtani asked the applicant Raju Mangtani to visit the residence of Naresh Kumar Gupta on the next day and deliver bribe amount of Rs. 30 Lakhs to him. On 25-122025, Raju Mangtani requested one Jagdish Bajaj to arrange Rs. 40 Lakhs by the next morning as he had to deliver Rs. 70 Lakhs, out of which Rs. 30 Lakhs had already been delivered for settling the matter. On 26-12-2025, Lokesh Tolani told one Raunak that their firms had been raided by CGST, Jhansi, and the officers of CGST, Jhansi, had demanded Rs. 1.5 Crores as bribe to settle the matters and showing favour of reducing the tax to Rs. 50 Lakhs. Prabha Bhandari did not agree to reduce the bribe amount and insisted on her demand of Rs. 1.5 Crores. Tejpal Mangtani had arranged Rs. 70 Lakhs to be delivered, and Ajay Sharma had instructed that he would inform the place of delivery soon. On 29-12-2025, Naresh Kumar Gupta had instructed the applicant to keep the money ready to deliver to ‘Sahab’ and get the matter settled.
10. The search memo states that the search proceedings were conducted by three teams. The first team observed movement of Raju Mangtani on a scooter, along with another person, who was later identified as Krishna, household worker/Driver of Raju Mangtani. Ranu Mangtani was carrying a white color cotton bag on the footrest of the scooter. They went to the house of Naresh Kumar Gupta Advocate. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate opened his Baleno car and Raju Mangtani kept the white color cotton bag on the back seat of the car. The rider Krishna left the spot. Raju Mangtani and Naresh Kumar Gupta got inside the car and went to Bikanerwala restaurant. Both of them remained seated inside the car.
11. The second team informed that co-accused Ajay Sharma had moved from his residence in a white color Honda Amaze car. Two CBI officials followed him on a scooter while the other team members remained at the residence to secure it. Ajay Sharma also reached Bikanerwala restaurant. He got down from his car after which Naresh Kumar Gupta also alighted from his car. Both of them entered Bikanerwala restaurant whereas Raju Mangtani remained seated on the co-driver seat of the Baleno car.
12. The applicant had left his residence on a motorcycle. He was also being followed and he also reached Bikanerwala restaurant, went inside, joined Ajay Sharma and Naresh Kumar Gupta and got engaged in conversation with each other. Naresh Kumar Gupta came out of the restaurant at about 21:00 hours and sat on the driver’s seat of the Baleno car while Raju Mangtani was already sitting inside the car. The car started moving. CBI officials followed the car.
13. Thereafter, Ajay Sharma came out of the restaurant and sat in his Amaze car and started moving in the same direction in which Naresh Kumar Gupta and Raju Mangtani had gone and he was also followed.
14. The applicant Anil Kumar Tiwari moved towards railway station and he was also being followed. The Baleno car stopped near railway tiraha, Raju Mangtani had alighted near the bus stop and was moving on foot. Naresh Kumar Gupta had stopped the Baleno car about 100 metres ahead. Shortly thereafter, Ajay Sharma came towards the same spot in his Amaze car and parked his car in front of Baleno car. Both Naresh Kumar Gupta and Ajay Sharma got down from their respective vehicles. Naresh Kumar Gupta took out the white cotton bag from the rear seat of Baleno car and was seen keeping the white cotton bag on the front co-driver seat of Ajay Sharma’s Amaze car. At that time, CBI officials intercepted them and the white cotton bag was recovered from the co-driver seat of the Amaze car of co-accused Ajay Sharma. The amount was counted and found to be Rs.69,94,000/-. All the accused were brought to officer’s rest house, MLR Karkhana Indian Railways, Jhansi.
15. During investigation, a charge sheet was submitted on 27-02-2026 against 8 accused persons including 2 firms namely, 1. Prabha Bhandari, Deputy Commissioner, 2. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent, 3. Ajay Sharma, Superintendent, 4. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, 5. Rajendra Kumar Mangtani (the applicant), 6. Tejpal Mangtani, 7. M/s Jai Ambe Plywood, Jhansi, a partnership firm of Smt. Sarika Mangtani, Smt. Sarita Mangtani, and Tejpal Mantani, 8. M/s Jai Durga Hardware, a partnership firm of Tejpal Mangtani and Smt. Sarika Mangtani
16. The charge-sheet states that during the search conducted on 18.12.2025 at the premises and godowns of the firms M/s Jay Ambe Plywood and M/s Jay Durga Hardware, M/s Jay Durga Hardware and M/s Jay Durga Tiles & Sanitary Zone, substantial discrepancies, including undeclared stock were detected, indicating serious tax implications. Intercepted communications established that immediately after detection of the irregularities, discussions were initiated regarding settlement of the matter. Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, acted as intermediary between the accused public servants and the representatives of the firms. Prabha Bhandari had visited the searched premises and remained present there for several hours, supervising the proceedings. Despite the seriousness of discrepancies, seizure documentation was incomplete, and seizure memos contained blank columns, and the number of pages of seized documents was not recorded. The mandatory post-search report required under departmental instructions was not submitted within the prescribed period. These irregularities were done purposely to use the seized material later on as a tool for demanding and accepting undue advantage.
17. Four sacks containing business records of the searched firms were recovered from a store near the garage in the house of co-accused Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent, on 30-31.12.2025. Three sacks and certain miscellaneous documents mentioned in the seizure list prepared on 18.12.2025 were missing from official custody. The contents of the recovered sacks related to the searched firms. Recovery of such records from a private residence, when three sacks and related documents were missing from the official custody, clearly established that the seized material had been unlawfully removed and retained outside the official control.
18. The charge-sheet also states that the manner in which the CGST search proceedings on 18.12.2025 were handled by the accused public servants, where they had left the seizure memos incomplete, the mandatory post-search report was not submitted within the prescribed period, and seizure documents were removed from the official custody and kept at the residence of co-accused Anil Kumar Tiwari through another co-accused Ajay Sharma, who was the custodian, indicates misuse of position and use of the seized material as leverage during negotiations. Rs. 69,94,000/- were recovered from the vehicle of co-accused Ajay Sharma on 13.12.2025. Immediately after the recovery, he informed co-accused Prabha Bhandari that “70” had been taken and she acknowledged the same. These facts clearly connected the demand, motive, acceptance and recovery into one consistent chain showing that the accused public servants demanded and obtained undue advantage in connection with their official functions.
19. The Mangtani brothers, namely, Rajendra Kumar Mantani (the applicant) and Tejpal Mangtani, were persons connected with and acting on behalf of the said firms. They had arranged and connected the bribe amount in part and coordinated its delivery. Their actions were undertaken to secure favorable treatment for the firms in the official proceedings. The undue advantage was thus given for the benefit of the commercial organizations, namely, M/s Jai Ambe Plywood and M/s Jai Durga Hardware and M/s Ja Durga Tiles & Sanitary Zone.
20. The investigation further established that the accused public servants had demanded and accepted undue advantage for settling the CGST matter unlawfully against the aforesaid firms and to perform their duties improperly. It was also established that the applicant Rajendra Kumar Mangtani and his brother Tejpal Mangtani, who were connected with the firms M/s Jai Ambe Plywood, M/s Jai Durga Hardware, and M/s Jai Durga Tiles & Sanitary Zone, had given undue advantages and induced accused public servants for the improper performance of their duties. The evidence shows that all the accused persons had acted in connivance with each other, and Naresh Kumar Gupta had facilitated the commission of the offences by acting as a middleman between the public servants and private persons.
21. The charge-sheet stated that the role of named accused person Lokesh Kumar Tolani could not be established during investigation, as no material could be collected to show that he had agreed to give any undue advantage, arranged funds, facilitated the transactions, or participated in the delivery of the bribe amount. Mere knowledge of the demand, without any overt act or participation, is not sufficient to attract liability under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or under Section 161(2) read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
22. Although the aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted on 27.02.2026, till date the trial court has not even taken cognizance of the offences.
23. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail for the past six and a half months. The investigation already stands concluded, charge-sheet has been filed way back on 27.02.2026, but the trial court has not even taken the cognizance of the offences till date. The charge-sheet mentions names of 47 witnesses besides some unnamed persons who are also proposed to be examined as witnesses. When even cognizance of the offences has not been taken till date and the trial is yet to commence, it will certainly take a very unreasonably long period to conclude. He has submitted that no recovery has been made from the applicant. The applicant is not a partner of any of the firms. He had not arranged the money to be given as bribe.
24. As per the prosecution case, the applicant had carried the amount and handed over the same to co-accused Naresh Kumar Gupta on the instructions of his brother Tejpal Mangtani, who is a partner of the firm. He submitted that the applicant is a senior citizen aged 61 years, having no criminal history, and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail keeping in view of the aforesaid facts.
25. The learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that the charge-sheet alleges commission of offences under Sections 61(2) B.N.S., read with Sections 7, 8, 10, and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 316(5) of BNS, and substantive offences under Sections 8 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has submitted that the applicant is not a public servant, and therefore, the substantive offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be made out against the applicant.
26. So far as the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the same provides as follows:-
“8. Offence relating to bribing of a public servant.
(1) Any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons, with intention-
(i) to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty; or
(ii) to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty;
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both:
Provided that the provisions of this section shall not apply where a person is compelled to give such undue advantage:
Provided further that the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage:Provided also that when the offence under this section has been committed by commercial organisation, such commercial organisation shall be punishable with fine.
Illustration. – A person, ‘P’ gives a public servant, ‘S’ an amount of ten thousand rupees to ensure that he is granted a license, over all the other bidders. ‘P’ is guilty of an offence under this subsection.
Explanation. – It shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue advantage is given or promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the public duty concerned, and, it shall also be immaterial whether such undue advantage is given or promised to be given by the person directly or through a third party.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a person, if that person, after informing a law enforcement authority or investigating agency, gives or promises to give any undue advantage to another person in order to assist such law enforcement authority or investigating agency in its investigation of the offence alleged against the later.”
27. The offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 is not made out because it requires inducement of a public servant to perform improperly a public duty, whereas the case set up by the CBI is that the public servants themselves had set up a trap to extract bribe from the private individual/private individuals and the private individuals had not induced them to perform any official duties in a manner desired by them in exchange of bribe being offered by them. He has further submitted that the second contingency which would attract Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is that the accused has given the bribe as reward to the public servant for improper performance of the public duty, whereas the case set up by the CBI is that the public servants had hatched a conspiracy to raid the premises of the firms, collect material, leave important lacunas so as to save the firms from action later on, after extracting money from them. Therefore, the allegations prima facie do not make out any reward having been paid by the accused private persons to the accused public servants. He has further submitted that the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment up to seven years.
28. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would apply to person in charge of commercial organization. The applicant is not a partner, manager, or any other position holder in any of the two firms. He was brother of a partner in one of the firms and husband of a partner in the other. His brother and wife are partners in one of the firms, namely Jai Ambe Traders.
29.Sri Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent CBI has strongly refuted this submission.
30. Although elaborate submissions have been advanced on this point, I do not think it proper to deal with the same in this order while deciding the bail application, and it is left open to be dealt with by the trial court.
31. Transcripts of some conversations involving the applicant have been brought on record along with a supplementary counter affidavit filed today, which state that the applicant had a conversation with co-accused Anil Kumar Tiwari on 19.12.2025. This conversation does not contain any reference to any demand of bribe. The conversation took place on 19.12.2025 at 11:59:46 hours. The second conversation took place at 16:22:22 on 19.12.2025, between the applicant and co-accused Naresh Kumar Gupta, during which Naresh Kumar Gupta asked the applicant as to whether he had got the keys, and the applicant answered that he has got the keys, which does not contain any reference as to any particulars which may specify the nature and other details of the keys. Yet another conversation took place between the applicant and Naresh Kumar Gupta at 12:09:52 on 26.12.2025, wherein the applicant told Naresh Kumar Gupta that 70 is ready. In a conversation that took place at 15:56:38 hours on 26.12.2025, there is no reference of demand or payment of any money. The last conversation annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit took place at 10:46:27 on 29.12.2025, wherein co-accused Naresh Kumar Gupta asked the applicant to bring the entire amount in cash, and that he will dispose of the matter in a day or two.
32. Shri Aakash Prasad submitted that the conversations have to be read in view of the conduct of the accused persons. When the conversations are seen in light of the fact that the accused applicant had taken the amount from Tejpal Mantani and handed over to co-accused Naresh Kumar Gupta in close proximity of the money being handed over to accused public servants, it makes out that the applicant had knowingly and willingly given the amount as bribe.
33. None of the conversations specifically state that the applicant was going to offer any bribe for inducing or rewarding any public servant to perform his duty in an illegal or improper manner.
34. It is relevant to notice that Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 912 of 2026 filed by co-accused Prabha Bhandari, Deputy Commissioner was rejected by means of an order dated 10.03.2026 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2140 of 2026 passed by co-accused Anil Kumar Tiwari, Superintendent CGST, was rejected by this Court by means of an order dated 13.05.2026. It has been informed that Prabha Bhandari has been granted a short-term bail on medical grounds by an order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court today, but that is not at all relevant for deciding the bail application of the applicant, as also like the earlier orders rejecting the bail applications of co-accused are also not relevant for deciding the bail application of the applicant, as the principle of negative parity does not apply for decision of bail applications. Each bail application has to be decided taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations leveled against the particular accused person and the material collected, as well as the other relevant factors including the gender, age, medical condition and criminal history, etc.
35. Having considered the prosecution case which has briefly been narrated above, it appears that the allegations make out a case that Prabha Bhandari, Deputy Commissioner CGST, had hatched a conspiracy with other officials of the department, under which the premises of two firms were raided. The applicant is the brother of one partner and husband of the other partner of one of the two firms. It is the prosecution’s case that the officials of CGST deliberately committed illegalities while carrying out the raid, preparing search and seizure memos, and completing the other documentary formalities. Thereafter, Prabha Bhandari demanded Rs. 1.5 crores as bribe for settling the matter. It has come in conversation that “Madam” Prabha Bhandari was not agreeing to reduce the demanded amount of Rs.1.5 crores, and an accused public servant was also appeared to be deeply disappointed by this behavior of co-accused Prabha Bhandari.
36. The allegations prima facie indicate that Prabha Bhandari hatched the conspiracy to extract undue advantages from the firms in question. The trap memo mentions that it was revealed that “Madam” Prabha Bhandari did not agree to reduce the bribe amount and demanded Rs. 1.5 crore as bribe. The bribe amount of Rs.70 lakhs was arranged by co-accused Tejpal Mangtani. It is on his instructions that the applicant handed over the cash to the advocate, middleman Naresh Kumar Gupta.
37. The allegations prima facie establish that the persons in charge of the firms had not willingly approached the public servants to induce them to perform their official duties in a wrongful manner. On the contrary, the public servants had hatched a conspiracy in which they had entangled the private persons, and thereafter they had compelled them to pay money to settle the matters. Therefore, prima facie it does not appear to be a case of inducement.
38. The applicant who was not a partner of any of the firm and even as per the prosecution case, the money to be delivered on behalf of the firm was arranged by Tejpal Mangtani, a partner of the firm. The applicant had merely carried the money from Tejpal Mangtani to Naresh Kumar Gupta, Advocate under instructions of the former.
39. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, coupled with the fact that the applicant is a senior citizen having no previous criminal history, he is languishing in jail for the past six and half months, the investigation already stands concluded, the trial is yet to commence and when the CBI proposes to examine 47 named witnesses, it will certainly take a very long time in its conclusion, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail.
40. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.
41. Let the applicant- Rajendra Kumar Mangtani @ Raju Mangtani be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.
