Jharkhand HC Grants Anticipatory Bail, Holds Chargesheet Filing No Bar [Read Order]

The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to a school secretary facing fraud and forgery allegations, reiterating that the filing of a chargesheet is not by itself a bar to entertaining or allowing an application for anticipatory bail.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to Abhay Kumar Mishra, who was apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-IV, Ranchi.

The petitioner had been elected as Secretary of the concerned school in 2015. The FIR, lodged in 2017 by the informant Mahesh Tewari, alleged misappropriation of school funds, irregularities in construction tenders, fraudulent manipulation of the number of classrooms in official records, and the allegedly ineligible appointment of the petitioner's wife as a teacher in 2009. An Income Tax penalty of Rs. 5.72 crores had been imposed on the school, and two of its bank accounts had been frozen. During the demonetisation period, cash amounting to Rs. 2.32 crores was alleged to have been deposited in and withdrawn from school accounts on the same day.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed Cr.M.P. No. 1990 of 2021 for quashing of the criminal proceedings and had received interim protection thereunder, which was subsequently vacated, though the quashing petition remained pending. A chargesheet was submitted on 31-12-2023, cognizance was taken by the trial court, and summons were issued to the petitioner. In a parallel case arising out of Chutia P.S. Case No. 130 of 2022 involving identical allegations, the petitioner and two co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate benches of the High Court.

Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ajit Kumar, submitted that the petitioner had co-operated fully in the investigation, that the school building had in fact been completed and sanctioned by the competent authority, that the discrepancy in the number of classrooms was a typographical error in the note-sheet which had been duly corrected, and that the appointment of the petitioner's wife predated his becoming Secretary by several years. He further submitted that a retired judge of the High Court had been appointed as Administrator of the school by court order with effect from 07-03-2022, and that the Administrator had made no complaint against the petitioner thereafter. On the question of the school election dispute, a writ court had upheld the petitioner's faction, though an appeal was pending before the Division Bench with judgment reserved.

The informant, Mr. Mahesh Tewari, appearing in person, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. He contended that the present application was not maintainable as cognizance had already been taken and summons had been issued by the trial court, thereby requiring the petitioner to appear before the court concerned. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Om Prakash Chhawnika v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 16221 of 2025), submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once summons have been issued, the accused is required to appear before the trial court and cannot seek anticipatory bail. He further emphasised the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner by referring to the Income Tax penalty imposed upon him, the freezing of his bank accounts, the alleged GST fraud, cash transactions undertaken during the demonetisation period, and the questionable credentials of the petitioner's wife.

The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that since the chargesheet had been filed, the petitioner was required to appear before the court and face trial.

The court distinguished the Supreme Court precedent relied upon by the informant, observing that it arose in a private complaint case and that its ratio was inapplicable to the present matter, which was a police case originating from investigation, in which the petitioner had co-operated and a chargesheet had been submitted. The court held that since another FIR of 2020 arising from the same milieu had resulted in anticipatory bail to the petitioner and others, it could not be ruled out that the petitioner genuinely apprehended arrest on appearance before the trial court. Accordingly, the court held that the anticipatory bail application was maintainable.

On the merits, the court observed that the allegations regarding construction irregularities, Income Tax penalty, and the wife's appointment were all matters for trial, and that no clear link had been established between the Income Tax penalty and the petitioner's individual acts. The court further noted that the petitioner had become Secretary only in 2015, whereas the appointment of his wife in 2009 appeared, prima facie, to predate his tenure.

Reiterating the settled legal position, the court held that the filing of a challan or chargesheet is not by itself a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail. Placing reliance on Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 684, the court recalled that the Supreme Court had in that case held that an application under Section 438 CrPC cannot be rejected solely on the ground that a chargesheet has been presented, and that the court must consider the application on its merits in light of the facts and circumstances. The court also drew upon the Supreme Court's observations in Gurbaksh Singh [(1980) 2 SCC 565], where it was held that the provision of anticipatory bail must be saved and not jettisoned, and that an overly restrictive reading of Section 438 would render it constitutionally vulnerable in light of Article 21.

The court accordingly directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within three weeks, and ordered that upon his surrender or arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-IV, Ranchi, in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017, subject to his co-operation in the trial and compliance with the conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate; Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate

For the State: Mr. Saket Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

For the Informant: Mr. Mahesh Tewari (In Person)

Case Title: Abhay Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. | A.B.A. No. 3354 of 2026 |

[Read Order]