The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of financial irregularities and forgery in the management of a school, holding that the mere filing of a chargesheet cannot, by itself, be a ground to reject a plea for pre-arrest bail.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order while hearing an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with Jagarnathpur Police Station Case No. 314 of 2017, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case was instituted by another advocate practising before the Jharkhand High Court. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was involved in financial irregularities, forgery and misappropriation of funds relating to the management of a school.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar argued that the criminal case stemmed from a long-standing dispute over the administration of the school. He submitted that the petitioner had been elected Secretary of the institution in 2015 and that the allegations concerning construction works, appointment of teachers and handling of school funds were a result of internal factional disputes.

The petitioner further contended that he had cooperated with the investigation throughout and pointed out that the police had already filed a chargesheet on December 31, 2023. It was also submitted that in another criminal case involving substantially similar allegations, the High Court had already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the other co-accused.

Addressing one of the allegations, the petitioner denied any irregularity in the appointment of his wife as a teacher, stating that she had been appointed in 2009, well before he assumed office as Secretary in 2015. He also maintained that she possessed the requisite educational qualifications for the post.

Opposing the application, the informant, who appeared in person, argued that the petitioner had repeatedly avoided appearing before the trial court despite cognizance having been taken and summons being issued. He further alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with others, had misappropriated school funds, manipulated official records and accumulated wealth through fraudulent transactions.

The informant also 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 the imposition of a penalty of ₹5.72 crore on the school.

After considering the rival submissions, the High Court observed that many of the allegations involved disputed questions of fact that could only be determined during trial after appreciation of evidence. The Court noted that issues relating to construction expenses, alleged manipulation of records and the appointment of the petitioner's wife required a full-fledged trial.

Rejecting the contention that anticipatory bail was barred after filing of the chargesheet, the Court observed:

"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."

Taking note of the petitioner's cooperation during the investigation and the nature of the allegations, the Court granted anticipatory bail.

The petitioner has been directed to surrender before the trial court within three weeks. In the event of his arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount.

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