Back
2026 Supreme(Jhk) 600
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Abhay Kumar Mishra, Son of Sri Suryanath Mishra – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Opp. Party
A.B.A. No. 3354 of 2026
Decided On : 24-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail/Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.202, S.438
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.482, S.482(2)
Headnote
(B)/34 - Anticipatory Bail - Filing of charge-sheet - Not a bar to grant anticipatory bail - The court must consider the application on its merits and in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, as denial of such relief would deprive an individual of personal liberty. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former Secretary of a school, filed an application for anticipatory bail apprehension of arrest in a criminal case registered in 2017. The State and the informant argued that since the investigation concluded and a charge-sheet had been submitted with cognizance taken by the Magistrate, the applicant should appear directly before the trial court rather than seeking anticipatory bail. The informant further alleged financial irregularities, fraud, and misrepresentation during the petitioner's tenure.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the filing of a charge-sheet does not legally bar the court from granting anticipatory bail. Finding the accusations to be matters appropriate for trial and noting the petitioner had cooperated in the investigation, the court exercised its discretion to grant bail upon specific conditions.
Issues: Whether the submission of a charge-sheet renders an application for anticipatory bail non-maintainable, and whether the nature of allegations (forgery/fraud) justifies denying pre-trial protection.
Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail is a procedural protection rooted in Article 21 and the presumption of innocence; it cannot be denied merely on the technicality that a charge-sheet has been presented, provided the merits of the case and personal liberty balance favor the applicant.
Result: Application allowed.
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate, Mr. Akash Ajit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari (In person).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for anticipatory bail following charge-sheet filing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's background arguments and claim of cooperation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent arguments regarding maintainability and specific allegations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. interaction between summons issuance and anticipatory bail maintainability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. merits assessment and non-applicability of bars to bail post-charge-sheet. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. grant of anticipatory bail subject to trial cooperation. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel, who is appearing in person for the informant.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. No. 4984 of 2017, registered for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class-IV, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset submits that this matter is arising out of the FIR of the year 2017 and earlier the petitioner has filed Cr.M.P. No. 1990 of 2021 for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings. He next submits that in that Cr.M.P., the petitioner was provided the interim protection, as such, the petitioner has no occasion to file the anticipatory bail application. He then submits that however, the said interim protection has been vacated, but the case is still pending. He further submits that now the chargesheet has been submitted by the police and the petitioner has co-operated in the investigation and in view of that anticipatory bail may kindly be provided to the petitioner.
4. Learned senior counsel submits that the informant is nowhere involved with the concerned society or not associated with the concerned school, however, he has chosen to file the FIR against the petitioner. He next submits that the petitioner was elected as the Secretary of the School in the year 2015 and for that the dispute arose and pursuant to that all false allegations have been made against the petitioner. He then submits that the allegations are made for a tender of the school building, however, the school building has already been completed and that was sanctioned by the competent authority. He further submits that there was a typographical error in preparation of the note-sheet, as in place of six class rooms, it has wrongly been typed as five class rooms, however, the same was corrected later on by the petitioner. He also submits that now the chargesheet has already been submitted on 31.12.2023. He also submits that for the identical allegation, another case being Chutia P.S. Case No. 130 of 2022 has also been lodged against the petitioner and others, in which, the petitioner has already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in A.B.A. No. 1629 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court and other two of the co-accused persons have also been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail in the said case in A.B.A. Nos. 3962 and 3967 of 2025 by this court.
5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the chargesheet has already been submitted and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 379, 120 (B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. He next submits that the allegations are made that the wife of this petitioner is not having the eligibility criteria of becoming a teacher, although she has been appointed and the petitioner became the Secretary of the School in the year 2015. He then submits that there is no relation of being appointed of the wife of this petitioner in the year 2009. He also submits that the wife of this petitioner has qualifie
