# Gyan Singh v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1067 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-15 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-43960 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote Govt. Advocate Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement of first informant the deceased, who was his brother, was accused in a case of murder of one Kamal Singh, but after trial he was acquitted. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: ## Text 7 All. Gyan Singh Vs State Of U.P. 1067 liable. His contention was that in these circumstances, no proceeding should be carried out. His further argument was that complainant has no locus standi to file complaint case. His next argument was that the alleged act was done by applicant in discharge of his official duty, because applicant was posted as Gram Panchayat Adhikari at the time of incident, so without prosecution sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C., the proceedings before trial court cannot be carried out. 4. These contentions were refuted by learned AGA. 5. So far argument of right to institute criminal complaint by private person is concerned, it is settled legal position that principle of locus standi has no application in criminal jurisprudence. Public money was involved in this matter, for which any person of public has right to initiate criminal proceeding against guilty person. 6. So far matter of prosecution sanction and alleged act being done in discharge of official duty is concerned, this is settled legal position that if any overt act is committed during discharge of duty, then prosecution sanction is required. But it has to be decided whether the alleged act of misappropriation of fund comes within official discharge of duty of applicant or not. This matter may be decided by trial court, if application in that regard is moved by applicant after appearance and surrender before the court below. Again this matter may be considered at the stage of framing of charge. 7. The impugned summoning order has been passed after appreciating facts and evidences and after following procedure of law. There appears no illegality or impropriety in the proceedings being carried out before trial court that may require exercise of inherent jurisdiction of this Court at this stage. Therefore, this application is dismissed. 8. Applicant is directed to appear before trial court immediately. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 22281 Of 2015 Gyan Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Sanjay Srivastava, Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun 1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Respondents: Govt. Advocate Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement of first informant the deceased, who was his brother, was accused in a case of murder of one Kamal Singh, but after trial he was acquitted. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 2. Perused the record. 3. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement of first informant the deceased, who was his brother, was accused in a case of murder of one Kamal Singh, but after trial he was acquitted. Co-accused Sitaram is the son of the aforesaid Kamal Singh and because of the murder of his father, co-accused Sitaram nurtured feelings of vengeance against the deceased and was also heard expressing his inclinations to avenge the death of his father. But so far as the applicant is concerned, he was village Pradhan. Further submission is that it was also stated by the first informant before investigating officer that the deceased of this case had also illegally encroached and had taken possession of one guava grove but the applicant being custodian of Gaon Sabha property, had managed to dispossess the deceased from the aforesaid encroachment and after doing so, a pond was created in the place of grove. Contention is that with the aforesaid background of facts, it is clear that the applicant could not have had any motive against the deceased to commit his murder while to the contrary, the conduct of the applicant in getting the deceased dispossessed from his illegal encroachment can certainly be said to be a reason for the first informant to nurture feelings of ill-will against him. Submission is that therefore, the applicant had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that even according to the statement of the first informant, he had not seen the applicant shooting at the deceased and according to him, he had only seen the applicant and the co-accused near the place of occurrence with country made pistols soon after occurrence. Further submission is that there is no incriminating recovery effected from the possession of the applicant or at his instance while the weapon of offence is said to have been recovered at the instance of co-accused Sitaram, who also had the motive to commit the murder of the 7 All. Gyan Singh Vs State Of U.P. 1069 deceased. Counsel for the applicant has also tried to argue that from the post mortem report also it does not appear to be a case of two shots and there is a reasonable possibility that the first injury received by the deceased might not have been caused by any gun shot. Contention is that in any view of the matter, in the aforesaid background of the facts, the case of the applicant stands distinguishable from that of co-accused Sitaram and, therefore, on a prima facie basis a case for bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 22.4.2015 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Gyan Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 80 of 2015, u/s 302 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S.- Saini, District- Kaushambi, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. --------- 1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J. Writ C No.- 23529 Of 2016 C/M, Gautam Buddha Inter College, & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. . ..Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Bhawesh Pratap Singh, Sri Irshad Ali Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Mool Chandra Maurya Education Law -- U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -- Section 16-D(4) -- Appointment of Authorized Controller -- Opportunity of Show Cause -- Natural Justice -- State Government as Decision-Making Authority -- Committee of Management of Gautam Buddha Inter College, Aliganj, District Etah challenged the order dated 11 April 2016 passed by the State Government under Section 16-D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, approving the appointment of an Authorized Controller to manage the affairs of the institution on a recommendation by the Director of Education (Madhyamik) -- show cause notices under Section 16D(3) dated 01.10.2015 and 23.11.2015 were issued to the petitioner regarding financial irregularities, which went unreplied -- Director then recommended appointment of an Authorized Controller -- short question: whether the State Government before passing an order under Section 16-D(4) is bound to give an opportunity to the Committee of Management to show cause -- Held: a plain reading of sub-section (4) of Section 16-D is silent regarding the requirement of notice to be served upon the Committee of Management before the State Government passes its order -- however, it would be incumbent upon the State Government to issue notice to the aggrieved party before passing the order -- the decision-making authority under Section 16-D(4) is the State Government and not the Director -- the civil consequence of superseding the Committee of Management flows from the order of the State Government and not from the recommendation of the Director -- the aggrieved party has every right to show cause before the State Government contending that the recommendations made by the Director are either incorrect or per se perverse - - whether the Committee appeared before the Director in response to the notice under sub-section (3) or not is immaterial. Education Law -- Natural Justice -- Audi Alteram Partem -- Principles of Natural Justice Read Into Statute -- Section 16-D(4) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 -- Civil Consequence -- Article 14 of the Constitution -- Held: rules of natural justice are not embodied rules -- they may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute -- what particular rule of natural justice should be implied depends upon the facts and circumstances, the framework of the statute and the purpose and effect of the exercise of pow er -- unless a statutory provision either specifically or by necessary implication excludes the application