JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioner, Mr. Zeeshan Ahmad Khan, learned A.C. to SC- VII appearing for the State and Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Informant. 2. Both these cases are arising out of the same FIR. In view of that, by order of the Coordinate Bench dated 29.07.2025; both the cases have been tagged together. Both these matters were taken up on 20 th August 2025 and on that date, the argument on behalf of the petitioners and informant was completed. However, due to paucity of time, the matters were adjourned and directed to be listed today. 3. Today the learned counsel appearing for the State has completed his argument. Learned counsel for the petitioners have replied to the arguments of the learned counsel for the State and the informant in both the cases. 4. In both the cases, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.130 of 2022 dated 07.06.2022, for the alleged offences registered under Sections 406 , 420, 408, 467, 120B of IPC, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-VIII, Ranchi. 5. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by taking the Court to the FIR, submits that on the instance of Shri Tanmay Mukherjee, the FIR has been registered. He submits that the said person was not elected nor authorized by the Executive Body, however, in the FIR; he has stated, he has been authorized by the Executive Body to file the FIR. 6. He further submits, in the FIR it has been alleged that Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra was elected as Secretary for two years, i.e. 2015-2017 of Vivekananda Vidya Mandir School, which is being run by Ram Krishan Seva Sangh. 7. He submits, it has further been alleged that his election was only for two years, however, in spite that he is still continuing on the post illegally. He submits that there is no provision of annual general body meeting for each year and general body meeting are being held as stipulated in Clause-9A of the registered bylaws of the society and the said school is being run in light of the provisions of the Society Registration Act. 8. He submits that there is no provision of annual general body meeting for each year and general body meeting are being held as stipulated in Clause-9A of the registered bylaws of the society and the said school is being run in light of the provisions of the Society Registration Act. 8. He further submits that the dispute is here with regard to the management of the said school and two factions are fighting with each other to take over the control of the said school. 9. He submits that the matter travelled to the I.G. registration and he has declared the body of the informant’s side valid, which has been challenged before this court in WP(C) No. 1151 of 2020 and the Coordinate Bench of this Court by the Judgment dated 31.08.2023 set-aside the said order of the I.G. registration, whereby other side has been declared as elected body and in due consultation in the said writ petition with consent of informant side and of petitioner side by order dated 03.03.2022, the Single Judge has been pleased to appoint a retired Judge of this court as administrator of that school. 10. He further submits that the allegation has been made that 3.5 crores money in the name of the building has siphoned away, which is not correct. According to him, building has been constructed and one contractor was appointed, namely Rajesh Kumar Singh and the approval of construction of the building is there from the HEC administration as well as the other civic bodies. 11. He further submits that the allegations are made that two accounts have been opened in the HDFC Bank in connivance with the Branch Manager of the HDFC Bank. He further submits that the HDFC bank is also a scheduled bank in the light of RBI regulation. In view of that there is no illegality and the false allegation is made in the light of the bylaws of the Ram Krishna Seva Sangh; account can be only opened in the scheduled bank or in the post office in the name of Ram Krishna Seva Sangh. He submits that the school is having registered by the bylaws. The school is being run in light of the bylaws. 12. He submits that the school is having registered by the bylaws. The school is being run in light of the bylaws. 12. The allegation of purchase of a vehicle in the name of Abhay Kumar Mishra has been done inadvertently, however, that has been later on rectified and the said vehicle is now the property of the school. 13. He further submits that for the similar allegation, one FIR being Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 314 of 2017 dated 13.09.2017 has already been registered and now the present FIR has been registered by the informant, who happened to be the member along with Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, who was the secretary before 2017. He further submits that now he has changed his faction and in view of that he has filed the case against the petitioners and others. 14. In this background, he has submitted that the case is arising out of a dispute between two factions of the school to control over the administration of the said school and the accused person namely Abhay Kumar Mishra has been granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in ABA No.1629 of 2025 by order dated 11.03.2025. He further submits that the Branch Manager of the HDFC bank has also been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Session Judge in ABP No.1836 of 2025. 15. He submits that the secretary is having more responsibility in the light of the bylaws and he has already been granted anticipatory by the Coordinate Bench of this court and in view of that, the case of these petitioners, who happens to be the Principal and the President respectively, are fit to provide the privilege of anticipatory bail. 16. He submits that all these aspects have been taken care of by the learned Coordinate Bench and the said Anticipatory Bail Application was also opposed by Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the informant. 17. He further submits that at the earlier point of time, a notice under section 41-A of CrPC has been received and the petitioners have cooperated. However, now the police is taking efforts to arrest the petitioners and in view of that anticipatory bail was necessitated to be filed. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail to these petitioners may kindly be granted. 18. Mr. However, now the police is taking efforts to arrest the petitioners and in view of that anticipatory bail was necessitated to be filed. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail to these petitioners may kindly be granted. 18. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposed the Anticipatory Bail Application of the petitioners. He submits that the petitioner in ABA No. 3967 of 2025 is the principal of the said school and the petitioner in ABA No.3962 of 2025 is the President of the said school. 19. He draws the attention of the Court to the order of the Coordinate Bench contained at page No. 175 of the Anticipatory Bail Application being ABA No. 1629 of 2025 and submits that up to Paragraph No.1 to 14, the submissions of petitioner have been noted and the finding is started from Paragraph 15 onwards. He submits that in Paragraph No.12, it has been noted that Rs.10,29,000/- was withdrawn for payment of the road tax of the bus school, however, it has come in the investigation that only Rs.910/- has been paid as tax and the rest of the amount has been misappropriated and the school buses have been blacklisted. 20. He also draws the attention of the Court to the page No.76 of the petition, which is the Memorandum of Association of Sri Ramkrishna Seva Sangha and submits that the procedure of election of the members have been described therein and in the light of Clause17-b of Rules and Regulations of Sri Ramakrishna Seva Sangh, it has been noted that the amount received by the Treasurer shall be deposited in the scheduled banks or Post Office, which is in the name Vivekanand Vidya Mandir by giving the papers of Sri Ramkrishna Seva Sangha. 21. He also draws the attention of the Court to Clause-3 of the Rules and Regulations for Functioning of Vivekanand Vidya Mandir and submits that the President, Secretary-cum-Manager and Treasurer are authorized to operate the bank account in the nationalized banks. 22. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 3.59 crores have been paid to one Rajesh Kumar Singh, who is said to be the contractor for constructing the building of the school. He submits that although the building has been constructed but the amount has been paid in absence of any bill raised by the said contractor. 23. 22. He further submits that a sum of Rs. 3.59 crores have been paid to one Rajesh Kumar Singh, who is said to be the contractor for constructing the building of the school. He submits that although the building has been constructed but the amount has been paid in absence of any bill raised by the said contractor. 23. He further submits that the purchase of the vehicle, a sum of Rs.4,30,300/- has been paid to Rajesh Kumar Singh and Rajesh Kumar Singh in turn has purchased the vehicle in the name of Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra. However, he further pointed out that when this has been found, the vehicle has now shown to be the property of the school. 24. He further submits that the wife of Abhay Kumar Mishra has been appointed as a teacher in the school without having the qualification of B.Ed. 25. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected as the allegations are serious and money has been defalcated. 26. The learned counsel for the State taking the Court to the context of the FIR submits that Sections 420 and 467 of IPC, allegations are made out. He further repeated the argument of Mr. Tewari with regard to the anticipatory bail granted to Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra that up to Paragraph No.1 to 14. are the submissions and thereafter the learned Court has granted the bail. 27. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner Kiran Dwivedi is the principal and she, in connivance with the Treasurer, has defalcated the money. He also draws the attention of the Court to the Memorandum of the said school. He further took the Court to the Clause-17-b of the said Memorandum and submit that the HDFC bank is not the scheduled bank and only in the schedule bank or post office, the account was to be opened. The HDFC account was opened, violating the rules. He also repeated the said argument as argued by Mr. Tewari with regard to the school building constructions as well as the vehicle and payment of tax of the school bus. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail of these petitioners may kindly be rejected. 28. In reply Mr. The HDFC account was opened, violating the rules. He also repeated the said argument as argued by Mr. Tewari with regard to the school building constructions as well as the vehicle and payment of tax of the school bus. On these grounds, he submits that the anticipatory bail of these petitioners may kindly be rejected. 28. In reply Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that informant of the present FIR was one of the executive members in the body of Abhay Mishra and now he has changed the faction and thereafter, he has filed the FIR. 29. He further submits that the Writ Petition was of the year 2020, which was decided finally by order dated 31.08.2023, however, by the interim order dated 03.03.2022, a retired judge of this Court has already been appointed as administrator of the said School and the FIR has been lodged in June 2022. 30. He submits that once the administrator is taken over of the administration of the said School, the informant has got no authority in absence of any valid executive committee to lodge the FIR. He submits that the elected committee of the informant's side has already been set-aside by the Single Judge of this Court by order dated 31.08.2023 as disclosed in Paragraph-52. 31. He further submits that it has wrongly been submitted that no tender was published for the construction of the building. According to him, all procedures have been followed, thereafter the building has been constructed. However, the third floor of the school building is being delayed due to the present dispute between the parties. 32. He submits that in view of the Writ Court’s Order, a new election has also been taken place. However, the result has not been declared because the learned Administrator has sent the entire proceeding before the High Court. 33. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials available on record and finds that one of the FIR is also on the record, being Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No.314 of 2017, which has been lodged by Mr. Mahesh Tewari and in that case, the charge-sheet has already been submitted. From the contents of the said FIR, it transpires that in that case also, allegations are made of defalcations of the money and other. 34. Mahesh Tewari and in that case, the charge-sheet has already been submitted. From the contents of the said FIR, it transpires that in that case also, allegations are made of defalcations of the money and other. 34. The present FIR has been lodged by alleging defalcation of money, which has been noted in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the informant and the State. 35. It has been pointed out that the informant was never elected nor authorized by the Executive Body to register the FIR. A retired Judge of this Court is looking over the affair of the school w.e.f. 07.03.2022 and he has not complained or authorised anybody to file F.I.R. General body meeting are being held as stipulated in clause 9(A) of registered by-laws of the society. The dispute is further there with regard to election of Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra as secretary of that school. It has been asserted that not a single money has been misappropriated and regular audits conducted by the statutory auditors, Income Tax Audit, CBSE inspection, audit of Jharkhand Education Department are being done of the school. It transpires HDFC bank is recognised bank by RBI and whether it is schedule bank or not can be a subject matter of trial. Second Floor of the building is constructed that is admitted position; however, allegation is made that the contractor has been paid in absence of raising of any bill that can further be looked into once the investigation is complete. But admitted position is that second floor of the building is constructed. The plan is sanctioned by the authorities or not that is another aspect, but facts remain that the building is constructed. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question at present stands recorded in the name of school. 36. Prima facie, it appears that this is a dispute between the two factions for control of the management of the school. The I.G. Registration has declared the elected body of the informant’s side as invalid, which has been challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 1151 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge of this Court at paragraph 50 by the order dated 31.08.2023 has been pleased to set-aside the said finding of the I.G. Registration. 37. The I.G. Registration has declared the elected body of the informant’s side as invalid, which has been challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 1151 of 2020 and the learned Single Judge of this Court at paragraph 50 by the order dated 31.08.2023 has been pleased to set-aside the said finding of the I.G. Registration. 37. By order dated 03.03.2022, the Retired Judge of this Court has been appointed as Administrator of the said school and now he is in charge of the administration of that school, meaning thereby affairs of the school is being looked by him. In the FIR, it has been disclosed that the informant has been authorized by the elected body to file the FIR, however, there is no authorization of the administrator, who is looking into the affairs of school w.e.f. 07.03.2022. 38. In the above background, it further transpires that the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1151 of 2020 has also opined that the dispute in nature is required to be adjudicated by a Competent Civil Court in the light of the Society Registration Act, which has been disclosed at paragraph 53 and 54 of the judgment dated 31.08.2023. 39. Further, one of the accused persons has already been granted anticipatory bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court and the HDFC Bank Manager has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Session Judge. 40. It transpires from the records as well as the bylaws, that the secretary is having more responsibility in the financial matters and another matter and he has been granted anticipatory bail. 41. The petitioners herein are Principal and President respectively of the said school. In this background, this Court has to consider whether petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail or not. 42. The matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. 43. Admittedly, two accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail. It is well settled that the criminal antecedent of the petitioners must be made for the purpose of granting bail, whether parity can be claimed by any other accused on basis of the order granting bail, which is the subject matter of the present case for granting bail. Whether an order granting a bail is a precedent on grounds of parity is a matter for future adjudication and when an application for bail is moved on the grounds of parity on behalf of another accused. In the event that parity is claimed in such a case thereafter, it is for that Court before whom parity is claimed to determine whether a case for grant of bail on reasons or parity is made out or not. 44. Even while considering the ground of parity, not only the weapon, but individual role attributed to each accused must be considered. The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victim of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is well settled principle that in determining as to whether, bail should be granted the High Court or for that matter the sessions court deciding an application would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place. But the court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail. This is for the reason that the outcome of the application has a significant bearing on the liberty of the accused on one hand as well as the public interest in the due enforcement of criminal justice on the other. The rights of the victim and their families are at stake as well. 45. Liberty is a priceless treasure for human being. The rights of the victim and their families are at stake as well. 45. Liberty is a priceless treasure for human being. It is founded on the bedrock of constitutional right and accentuated further on human rights principle. It is a cardinal value on which civilization rests. It cannot be allowed to be paralysed and immobilized. Deprivation of liberty of a person has enormous impact on his mind as well as body. But, liberty of an individual is not absolute. Society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw liberty and it has sanctioned on an individual when an individual becomes a danger to collective and to societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its members and it desires that the citizens should obey the law respecting it as a cherished social norm. 46. What has been discussed herein and further coming to the facts of the present case, prima facie it appears that two factions are fighting each other for the control over the administration of the school in question. 47. In the light of the discussions made herein above, the Secretary is having more responsible role in discharging the duty of the school and he has been granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and these petitioners are said to be the Principal and the President respectively of the said school. In view of that, this Court comes to the conclusion that these petitioners deserve to get the anticipatory bail. 48. In view of that, this Court comes to the conclusion that these petitioners deserve to get the anticipatory bail. 48. Accordingly, the petitioners above named are directed to surrender before the learned Court within three weeks from the date of receipt of the order and on the event of their surrender/arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount of each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-VII, Ranchi in connection with Chutia P.S. Case No.130 of 2022, subject to the condition that (i) petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required, (ii) the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer; (iii) the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the learned Trial Court. 49. Accordingly, these Anticipatory Bail Applications are disposed of. Pending any I.A. also stands disposed of.