P&H HC Denies School Accountant’s Brother Anticipatory Bail, Citing Alleged Diversion Of School Fees Into His Account and Need For Custodial Questioning

The prosecution alleged that Dinesh, an accountant at Aryakulam International School, embezzled school fees over several years through misappropriation of cash, manipulation of accounting records and use of backdated receipts. The investigation allegedly traced some of the funds to bank accounts held by his wife and his brother, the petitioner, Ravinder Singh, and alleged that the funds were used to construct houses and purchase vehicles.

Ravinder sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in an FIR registered under Sections 316(4), 318(4), 335, 336(3), 338, 340 and 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

He denied involvement, asserted that his transactions with Dinesh were ordinary family or business transactions, and submitted that the case rested on documentary and digital evidence already available to the investigators.

The State and complainant opposed bail, contending that custodial interrogation was required because school funds had been transferred to the petitioner’s accounts.

Section 482 of the BNSS empowers the court to grant anticipatory bail. The Court stated that this exceptional power is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, relying on *Sachin @ Sachin Ahuja v. State of Punjab*, 2022 (4) RCR (Criminal) 968.

It also relied on *Shri Kant Upadhay v. State of Bihar*, SLP (Crl.) 7940 of 2023, for the proposition that protection from arrest in a serious case may hamper investigation or risk interference with evidence.

The Court treated custodial interrogation as potentially necessary in serious and complex cases to obtain information, investigate concealed evidence and facilitate recovery.

The Court considered the allegations serious because the investigation indicated that funds allegedly embezzled by Dinesh had been transferred to the petitioner’s bank accounts and used for construction, notwithstanding the petitioner’s claim that the transactions were routine family or business dealings.

It held that the nature of those transfers required further investigation and that custodial interrogation was necessary to examine the alleged modus operandi, trace the financial transactions and money trail, and effect recoveries.

The Court was also concerned that interrogation under the protection of interim bail could hamper the investigation.

The petition was dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.