The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of financial irregularities and forgery in a school management case, holding that the mere filing of a chargesheet alone cannot be a valid ground to deny pre-arrest bail.
The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of financial irregularities and forgery in connection with the management of a school.
The Court observed that the mere filing of a chargesheet cannot, by itself, be a reason to deny pre-arrest bail.
A bench led by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order while considering an anticipatory bail plea filed in connection with Jagarnathpur Police Station Case No. 314 of 2017.
The case is registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
ALSO READ: ANALYSIS| Supreme Court: ‘Anticipatory Bail Not Meant for Absconding Accused’
The prosecution case was initiated by another advocate practicing before the Jharkhand High Court. It was alleged that the petitioner was involved in financial misconduct, forgery, and misappropriation of funds related to the school’s administration.
For the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar argued that the dispute had its origin in a long-running conflict over the school’s management. He submitted that the petitioner was elected as Secretary in 2015 and that the allegations relating to construction activities, appointment of teachers, and handling of school funds were linked to internal factional differences.
The petitioner also stated that he had cooperated with the investigation. He further pointed out that the police had already filed a chargesheet on December 31, 2023. It was additionally submitted that in another criminal matter involving similar allegations, the High Court had already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the co-accused.
On one of the allegations, the petitioner denied any irregularity in the appointment of his wife as a teacher, asserting that she was appointed in 2009 prior to the petitioner assuming the role of Secretary in 2015. He also claimed that she had the required educational qualifications for the post.
Opposing the application, the informant, appearing in person, contended that the petitioner had repeatedly avoided appearing before the trial court, even after cognizance was taken and summons were issued. The informant alleged that, in collusion with others, the petitioner misappropriated school funds, manipulated official records, and amassed wealth through fraudulent transactions.
The informant further alleged irregularities in the construction of school buildings, manipulation of financial records, and suspicious cash deposits into the school’s accounts during the demonetisation period. Reference was also made to proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department, including a penalty of Rs.5.72 crore imposed on the school.
After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that several allegations turned on disputed questions of fact, which would need to be decided during trial on the basis of evidence. The Court specifically observed that matters such as construction expenditures, alleged manipulation of records, and the appointment of the petitioner’s wife required a full and proper trial.
Rejecting the argument that anticipatory bail could not be considered after the chargesheet had been filed, the Court held,
“The filing of a challan or charge-sheet is not, by itself, a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail. An application under Section 438 CrPC corresponding to Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 cannot be rejected solely on that ground. The court must consider the application on its merits and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Considering the petitioner’s cooperation during investigation and the nature of the allegations, the High Court granted anticipatory bail.
The petitioner has been directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks. If he is arrested or surrenders, he will be released on bail after furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of the same amount.