School Management Dispute Between Two Lawyers: Jharkhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Advocate

The Jharkhand High Court has granted anticipatory bail to an advocate accused of financial irregularities and forgery in the management of a school, in a case instituted by a fellow lawyer practising before the High Court.A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017, registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120B/34 IPC. The Court observed that the filing of a chargesheet is not by itself a ground to reject an application for anticipatory bail and that such pleas must be considered on their own merits.The informant and the accused are both advocates practising before the Jharkhand High Court. Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the FIR arose out of a long-standing dispute concerning the management of a school of which the petitioner had been elected Secretary in 2015. It was argued that the allegations relating to construction of school infrastructure, appointment of teachers and management of school funds were motivated by factional disputes over control of the institution. The petitioner further submitted that he had cooperated throughout the investigation and that the police had already filed a chargesheet on December 31, 2023. It also pointed out that in another criminal case involving substantially similar allegations, the petitioner and other co-accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by coordinate benches of the High Court. The petitioner denied allegations concerning the appointment of his wife as a teacher, contending that she had been appointed in 2009 and that he became Secretary only in 2015. It was also submitted that she possessed the requisite educational qualifications.Appearing in person, Mahesh Tewari, the informant, opposed the plea. He submitted that the petitioner had repeatedly avoided appearing before the trial court despite cognizance having been taken and summons having been issued. The informant further alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with others, had misappropriated school funds and amassed wealth through fraudulent transactions. Among other allegations, he claimed that irregularities had been committed in the construction of school buildings, that figures in official records had been manipulated and that large cash deposits were made into school accounts during the demonetisation period. He also referred to proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department and submitted that a penalty of ₹5.72 crore had been imposed on the school.After considering the rival submissions, the Court found that many of the allegations raised by the informant would have to be examined during trial. The Bench noted that the school building had already been constructed and that disputes regarding tender amounts, alleged interpolation of records and other financial transactions were matters requiring evidentiary examination.The Court also observed that questions relating to the appointment and qualifications of the petitioner's wife were already matters for trial. Rejecting the argument that anticipatory bail could not be granted 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."Holding that the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation and that the allegations would be tested during trial, the Court granted him anticipatory bail.The Bench directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court within three weeks. In the event of arrest or surrender, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bonds of ₹25,000 with two sureties of the like amount.Case Title: Abhay Kumar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.Case Number: A.B.A. No. 3354 of 2026Appearance: Senior Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar assisted by Mr. Krishna Prajapati and Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar. Mr. Saket Kumar for the State. Mr. Mahesh Tewari (In person).Click Here To Read/Download Order

School Management Dispute Between Two Lawyers: Jharkhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Advocate

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

School Management Dispute Between Two Lawyers: Jharkhand High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Advocate

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rushil Batra

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers