Abhay Kumar Mishra vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Abhay Kumar Mishra, is seeking anticipatory bail in Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017, registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379, and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case, initiated in 2017, has seen the submission of a chargesheet on December 31, 2023, and the learned court has taken cognizance. The petitioner had previously sought quashing of proceedings and received interim protection, which was later vacated. Allegations involve the construction of a school building, the eligibility of the petitioner's wife as a teacher, and financial irregularities concerning GST payments on a tender. An administrator has been appointed for the school since March 7, 2022, and has not raised any complaints against the petitioner. Another case with identical allegations resulted in anticipatory bail for the petitioner and co-accused.

Held

The Court held that the filing of a chargesheet or challan is not, in itself, a bar to the grant of anticipatory bail. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Ravindra Saxena's v. State of Rajasthan, the Court emphasized that an application under Section 438 CrPC cannot be rejected solely on this ground. The Court must consider the application on its merits, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and that for identical allegations in another case, anticipatory bail had been granted. The Court also noted that the administrator appointed for the school had not made any complaints. Therefore, the Court was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court within three weeks and, upon surrender/arrest, to be released on bail of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties of like amount, subject to cooperation in the trial and other conditions under Section 482(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC (corresponding to Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) despite the submission of a chargesheet and cognizance being taken by the court? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the chargesheet has been filed and he has cooperated with the investigation. He highlights that a previous interim protection was granted and that for an identical case, anticipatory bail has been granted to him and co-accused. He also points to the appointment of an administrator who has not made any complaints. The allegations are false, stemming from a dispute over his election as Secretary of the school. The informant is not associated with the school. Revenue/State's arguments: The State argues that since the chargesheet has been submitted, the petitioner is required to appear before the learned court to face trial. The informant argues that summons have been issued, making the anticipatory bail application not maintainable, and that the petitioner has repeatedly avoided appearing before the court. The informant also points to alleged financial fraud, including a penalty of Rs. 5.72 crores imposed by Income Tax authorities and the freezing of bank accounts, and disputes the GST payment details.