The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently granted anticipatory bail to a Gram Pradhan accused in a case related to alleged forgery and misappropriation of funds under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme. The order was passed by Justice Rajeev Bharti in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 538 of 2026.
The FIR, registered at Kotwali Nagar Police Station in Balrampur district, invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201. The allegations concerned an alleged conspiracy involving forged records and misuse of government funds meant for school mid-day meals.
According to court proceedings, the accused, Sarita Devi, was one among 44 persons named in the FIR. It was argued before the court that under the Mid-Day Meal Rules, 2015, the responsibility for utilization and management of funds primarily rested with the Headmaster or Headmistress of the concerned schools, and not with the Gram Pradhan.
The defence also pointed out that there was no criminal history against the applicant and that several co-accused, including officials and suppliers, had already been granted bail in related proceedings.
After considering the submissions and the facts placed on record, the High Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, including cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with evidence, and restrictions on foreign travel without court permission.
The matter highlights the court’s approach in examining statutory responsibilities and the role of individual accused persons before deciding anticipatory bail applications in criminal proceedings.
The Gram Pradhan was represented by criminal advocate Imran Asim Khan.
Key Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 201 IPC
- Mid-Day Meal Rules, 2015
The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the Gram Pradhan after considering the absence of direct statutory responsibility under the Mid-Day Meal Rules, lack of criminal antecedents, and bail already granted to other co-accused in the case.
The information provided in this article is published solely for general informational and reporting purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional consultation of any kind. Readers are advised to seek independent legal counsel for advice relating to their specific circumstances.
This publication is not intended to solicit clients or advertise legal services. The mention of advocates, parties, or court proceedings is purely for reporting and informational purposes. Royal Litigators and its members make no representations regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information contained herein.