JUDGMENT : (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) 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 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. 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 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. 6. 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. 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. 8. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.