Abhay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2025

0
21

Jharkhand High Court

Abhay Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                          ABA No. 1629 of 2025

                  Abhay Kumar Mishra, aged about 51 years, Son of Sri Surya
                  Nath Mishra, Resident of House No. 14, Road No. 1, Birsa
                  Chowk, Birsa Nagar, P.O. -Hatia, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-
                  Ranchi, Jharkhand.
                     ...         Petitioner
                                        Versus

             1.

The State of Jharkhand

2. Tanmay Mukherjee, aged about 63 years, S/o Late
Gopalchandra Mukherjee, R/o Choudhary Niwas, In front of
Saroj Apartments, Kilbern colony Hinoo, P.O., P.S.- Doranda,
District- Ranchi.

                  ...          Opp. Parties


         Coram:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

            For the Petitioner          : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Adv.
                                          Ms. Aprajita Bhardawaj, Adv.
                                          Mr. Krishna Prajapti , Adv.
                                          Mr. Akriti Shree , Adv.
            For the State               : Md. Shahabuddin, SC VII
                                          Mr. Anuj Kr. Trivedi, AC to SC VII
                                          Mr. Z.A. Khan, AC to SC VII
            For the informant           : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv. (through V.C.)



02 / 11.03.2025             Heard the parties.

2. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this
Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in
connection with Chutia P.S. Case No. 130 of 2022
registered under Sections 406, 420, 408, 467, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that, the informant who claims to be the elected
treasurer of Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh has lodged a
written report, alleging therein that in the year 2015, the
petitioner was elected as the Secretary of Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh. Vivekanand Vidya Mandir School
is run by Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh. The petitioner

1 ABA no. 1629 of 2025
and the co-accused persons are the self-proclaimed
Secretary and other office bearers of Sri Ram Krishna
Seva Sangh, after 03.09.2017 and are managing the
school and society; keeping the management of the
same in their own hand till 07.03.2022, even though the
Inspector General of Registration, Jharkhand declared
that Sukrit Bhattacharyaji is the President of Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh and his team are the elected and
valid office bearers of Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh. It is
further alleged in the said FIR, that under the
protection of the petitioner, the Principal of the school
and the other co-accused persons, in furtherance of
their common intention, committed cheating by mis-
appropriating the fund of Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh.
It is alleged that in violation of the by-laws an account
of the school was opened illegally in a private bank,
even though there has been a provision that the account
of the school is to be opened only in a nationalized
bank and the petitioner and the co-accused persons,
deliberately violated the rules of the school. It is further
alleged in the FIR that the petitioner without any
tender, agreement or competent authority and without
the approval of the building plan or the permission of
the HEC management, constructed the building of the
school through the co-accused Rajesh Kumar Singh- the
Contractor of M/s Adarsh Construction and paid Rs.
3.5 Crores for construction of the building as advance
amount to the said co-accused Rajesh Kumar Singh- the
Contractor of M/s Adarsh Construction; which is
illegal and the payment of the same was made from the
account opened with HDFC bank. The Chartered
Accountant of the school never pointed out the opening
of the account with the HDFC bank illegally or the
payment made to the contractor as advance. It is further

2 ABA no. 1629 of 2025
alleged that the vehicle bearing registration no.
JH20B2500, was purchased in the name of the petitioner
by using the fund of the school and the same was also
not pointed out by the Chartered Accountant. Though
not mentioned in the FIR it is also alleged that Rs.
10,29,000/- was withdrawn towards payment of the
Road Tax of nine buses of the school while only Rs.
900/- was deposited, out of the said amount as Road
Tax. On the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant, police registered the case and the
investigation of the case is going on at present.

4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are
false and the motive for false implication is that the
petitioner was elected as the Secretary of Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh and only to wreak vengeance, the
present FIR has been lodged. It is next submitted that
the petitioner has received a notice under Section 41 A
of CrPC and the same has been replied to by the
petitioner, therefore, the case of the petitioner falls
under the category ‘B’, i.e., for filing charge sheet,
custody of the petitioner is not required; as has been
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case
of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI & Anr. reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51.

5. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that this is the second FIR and an
improved version of the FIR in connection of which
Jagarnathpur P.S. case no. 314 of 2017 has been lodged
by Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate, in his personnel
capacity, for the same set of facts and same transaction,
therefore, this FIR is not maintainable being hit by
Section 162 of CrPC.

3 ABA no. 1629 of 2025

6. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that this FIR was lodged by the informant
by suppressing the material fact; as in terms of the
order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WPC no. 1151 of 2020, the administration of Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh and the Vivekanand Vidya Mandir
School has been handed over by the petitioner to a
former Judge of this Court, namely Mr Justice Narendra
Nath Tiwari (Rtd.) as per order of this Court, on
07.03.2022, so once the administration of Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh and the Vivekanand Vidya
Mandir School was with Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari
(Rtd.), there is no way, the informant could have
claimed himself to be treasurer of the said Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh.

7. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that so far as the vehicle is concerned, the
same was all along the vehicle of the school and
because of typographical error, inadvertently, the
ownership of the same was opened in the name of the
petitioner and instead of the same being opened in the
name of Vivekanand Vidya Mandir School, Secretary
I/C- the petitioner and on a request to the said effect
being made by the Principal of Vivekanand Vidya
Mandir School dated 03.04.2022, the name of the owner
of the said vehicle was already changed to Vivekanand
Vidya Mandir, prior to lodging of the FIR and in this
respect, learned senior counsel for the petitioner draws
attention of the Court to page 210 of this brief; which is
the copy of the certificate of the registration of the
vehicle concerned, which shows that the ownership of
the vehicle stands recorded in the name of Vivekanand
Vidya Mandir.

4 ABA no. 1629 of 2025

8. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that so far as the allegation of mis-
appropriation of the funds of Vivekanand Vidya
Mandir is concerned, no money has been mis-
appropriated by the petitioner, nor the question about
the same arises, because there are regular audits
conducted by the statutory auditors, Income Tax audits,
CBSE inspection / audit, Jharkhand Education
Department audit, and inspections are being
conducted from time to time but none of authorities
have ever pointed out any anomaly.

9. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that HDFC bank is a scheduled bank as
notified by the Reserve Bank of India, so opening of an
account with the HDFC bank, by itself, cannot
constitute any offence.

10. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner that so far as the allegation made against the
petitioner that without any tender or without
permission of the HEC, the school was constructed, it is
submitted drawing attention of the Court to page 22
(Annexure 2 ) of the supplementary affidavit that notice
inviting tender was floated by Vivekanand Vidya
Mandir for the construction of the building and
drawing attention of the Court to Annexure 3/1 being
page 24 of the said supplementary affidavit, it is
submitted that it is the copy of the communication, by
which, HEC Limited has accorded ‘No Objection’ for
extension of the building which was made within the
existing boundary of the school. It is next submitted
that this fact of ‘No Objection’ has been accorded by the
HEC for construction of the building is even supported
by the own documents of the informant which is

5 ABA no. 1629 of 2025
evident from page 82 of the counter affidavit filed by
the informant in this case.

11. So far as the allegation that the Chartered Accountant
has not conducted the audit in accordance with law is
concerned, it is further submitted by learned senior
counsel for the petitioner that the same is fallacious
and Mr Justice Narendra Nath Tiwari (Rtd.) has also
conducted the audit of institution and no illegality was
found and the vehicle in question is also mentioned in
the Asset Register of the school.

12. It is next submitted that the allegation of withdrawal of
Rs. 10,29,000/- has not been mentioned anywhere in
the FIR and the same has been made for the first time in
the counter affidavit filed by the informant but the
same is also false. It is next submitted that none of the
offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 408, 467,
120B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the
petitioner.

13. It is next submitted that petitioner is a respectable
person and he is an Advocate of repute besides being a
social worker and member of many organizations of the
society. It is next submitted that the petitioner is
ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case
hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.

14. The learned counsel appearing for the State and the
learned counsel for the informant vehemently oppose
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and
submits that there is serious allegation against the
petitioner of misappropriating several crores of rupees,
hence, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail and this anticipatory bail application
being without any merit be dismissed.

6 ABA no. 1629 of 2025

15. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and
after going through the materials in the record, it is
pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence
punishable under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, this
Court do not find any allegation against the petitioner
of cheating anybody or dishonestly inducing anybody
to part with any money or property, and in the absence
of the same, the offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC is not made out.

16. So far as the offence punishable under Section 467 of
IPC is concerned, this Court do not find any allegation
against the petitioner of creating any false document.
Assuming for the sake of argument, that the petitioner
has opened an account with a private bank instead of
opening an account in a nationalized bank, that by
itself, certainly, do not constitute any offence.

17. The undisputed fact remains that a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has quashed the letter of the Inspector
General of Registration, by which, the informant was
recognized as Treasurer of the concerned Sri Ram
Krishna Seva Sangh by the Inspector General of
Registration.

18. At present, the undisputed fact remains that since
07.03.2022, a former Judge of this Court, is acting as
Administrator of Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh and the
petitioner is a practicing advocate of this Court. There is
dispute between two factions for controlling the
management of the said Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh.
The quashing of the recognition of the faction of the
informant, by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPC
No. 1151 of 2020 goes to show that the petitioner was
entitled to be the Secretary of the said Sri Ram Krishna
Seva Sangh during relevant period.

7 ABA no. 1629 of 2025

19. Undisputedly, the vehicle in question, at present,
stands recorded in the name of Vivekananda Vidya
Mandir. There is no allegation of dishonest
misappropriation of any property by the petitioner.

20. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that this is a fit case, where the
petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Hence, in the event of arrest by the police or surrender
within a period of six weeks from the date of this order,
the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of learned JM, Ranchi in connection
with Chutia P.S. Case No. 130 of 2022 subject to the
condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the
Investigation of the case and will not annoy or disturb
the informant in any manner and will appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when noticed by him and
will submit mobile number and photocopy of Aadhaar
card at the time of surrender in the court below with an
undertaking not to change mobile phone number
during the pendency of the case along with the other
conditions laid down under section 482 (2) of BNSS,
2023.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
AFR-Smita/-

8 ABA no. 1629 of 2025



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here