Mere Filing Of Chargesheet No Bar To Grant Of Anticipatory Bail: Jharkhand High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed by an accused who was apprehending his arrest in a case registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi 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.”

Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Saket Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

It was alleged that the petitioner became the Secretary of the School in the year 2015, and the Chartered Accountant of the petitioner was himself an accused. It was alleged that with the active connivance and support of the petitioner, they amassed huge wealth out of the school funds by committing fraud. It was further alleged that the petitioner’s wife did not meet the eligibility criteria of a teacher, but she was appointed. The petitioner claimed that his wife had the requisite B.Ed. qualification.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the case arose out of a private complaint case, in which the Co-ordinate bench of the Court had rejected the anticipatory bail application and directed the accused to surrender before the Court and also seek regular bail. The Bench also noticed that the petitioner was earlier protected by the Co-ordinate Bench, which was later on vacated, and the present case arose out of a police case.

The Bench noticed that after investigation, the chargesheet was submitted, and the petitioner had already cooperated in the investigation, the petitioner apprehended that, on appearance, he could be taken into custody. The Bench thus stated, “There is no restriction of entertaining the petition if any apprehension is there.”

The Bench next dealt with the informant’s submission that the allegation of amassing huge wealth was evident from the action of the Income Tax authorities, who had imposed a penalty to the tune of Rs. 5.72 crore upon the school. The Bench held that the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Department did not substantiate that the same was imposed due to the act of the Petitioner.

“Furthermore so far the certificates and appointment of the wife of this petitioner in the year 2009 is said school is concerned, that is already the subject matter of trial. It transpires that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the said school in the year 2015, prima facie, it appears that in the Secretaryship of this petitioner, the appointment of his wife was not made”, it added.

Considering the informant’s argument that if the summons had already been issued, the petitioner was required to appear before the court, and the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable, the Bench clarified, “The filing of a challan or charge-sheet is not, by itself, a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail.”

The Bench thus granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Cause Title: Abhay Kumar Mishra v. The State of Jharkhand (Neutral Citation: 2026:JHHC:18476)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar, Advocates Krishna Prajapati, Akash Ajit Kumar

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Saket Kumar

Informant: Mahesh Tewari (In person)

Click here to read/download Order