# Indra Pratap Tiwari v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 50
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1588 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/indra-pratap-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-46589
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

G.A., Anuj Pandey, Sushil Kumar Singh

A. Bail - Objectors - The Court held that such
objectors, as in the present case, can only be allowed
to interject under the supervision of AGA/Public
Prosecutor. The objectors brought forth the criminal
antecedents of the appellant which is necessary fact
to be looked into at the time of grant of bail to the
appellant post Conviction by the Trial Court. (Para 70)

B. Criminal Law - Joint Trial - Joint Trial can be
held as the college where the three accused were
studying was one, its Principal had lodged First
Information
Report
regarding
the
similar
interpolations in mark sheets by the three accused on
the basis of same record of results maintained by it in
its ordinary course of business and the very same
evidence was to be produced to bring home the
charge in the case of each of the accused and the
prosecution witnesses who were examined to prove
the charges were also the same. (Para 72)

The Court rejected the bail application of the
applicant on finding that he had submitted fake proof
of identity and residence for procuring arms license,
and in taking the Courts for a ride in submitting bail
papers and sureties on the basis of fake residential
address and also removing Court records of criminal
case pending against him. (Para 73)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,913 of 96,894. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39913 for what follows._

50 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by preventing the guilty party from repeating the
offence; it is also designed to reform the
offender and reclaim him as a law abiding
citizen for the good of the society as a whole.
Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of
punishment thus play their due part in judicial
thinking while determining this question. In
modern civilized societies, however, reformatory
aspect is being given somewhat greater
importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh
sentences both lose their efficaciousness. One
does not deter and the other may frustrate
thereby making the offender a hardened
criminal. In the present case, after weighing the
considerations already noticed by us and the
fact that to send the appellant back to jail now
after 7 years of the annoy and harassment of
these proceedings when he is also going to lose
his job and to earn a living for himself and for
his family members and for those dependent on
him, we feel that it would meet the ends of
justice
if
we
reduce
the
sentence
of
imprisonment to that already undergone but
increase the sentence of fine from Rs- 200/- to
Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of
default will remain the same."

17. In the present case the appellant is in
jail since 25.1.2014 and had served the sentence
for 6 years 10 months. In view of aforesaid facts
the sentence awarded to the appellant is
modified and the sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellant in this
case.

18. The present jail appeal is partly
allowed. The appellant is in jail. He shall be
released forthwith if not wanted in any other
case. It is further directed that the appellant shall
furnish bail bonds with sureties to the
satisfaction of the court concerned.
----------
(2021)12ILR A50
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1588 of 2021

Indra Pratap Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Dhirendra Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:
G.A., Anuj Pandey, Sushil Kumar Singh

A. Bail - Objectors - The Court held that such
objectors, as in the present case, can only be allowed
to interject under the supervision of AGA/Public
Prosecutor. The objectors brought forth the criminal
antecedents of the appellant which is necessary fact
to be looked into at the time of grant of bail to the
appellant post Conviction by the Trial Court. (Para 70)

B. Criminal Law - Joint Trial - Joint Trial can be
held as the college where the three accused were
studying was one, its Principal had lodged First
Information
Report
regarding
the
similar
interpolations in mark sheets by the three accused on
the basis of same record of results maintained by it in
its ordinary course of business and the very same
evidence was to be produced to bring home the
charge in the case of each of the accused and the
prosecution witnesses who were examined to prove
the charges were also the same. (Para 72)

The Court rejected the bail application of the
applicant on finding that he had submitted fake proof
of identity and residence for procuring arms license,
and in taking the Courts for a ride in submitting bail
papers and sureties on the basis of fake residential
address and also removing Court records of criminal
case pending against him. (Para 73)

Bail Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ashwini kumar Upadhyay Vs U.O.I . & ors. Writ
Petition Civil No. 699 of 2016
11 All. Indra Pratap Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
51
2. A.R. Antulay Vs R.S. Naik AIR 1988 SC 1531

3. Ratan Lal Vs Prahlad Jat & ors. Criminal Appeal No.
499 of 2014

4. Naveen Singh Vs St. of U.P. AIR Online 2021
Supreme Court 138

5. Manohar Lal Vs Dinesh Anand & ors. 2001 (5) SCC
407

6. Arunachalam Vs PSR Sadananantham & ors. 1979
(2) SCC 297

7. Thakur Ram & ors. Vs St. of Bihar 1966 (2) SCR
740

8. Shivakumar Vs Hukum Chand & anr. 1999 (7) SCC
467

9. NHRC Vs St. of Guj. 2004 (8) SCC 610

10. Anand Sen Yadav Vs St. of U.P. Criminal Appeal
No. 1061 of 2011

11. People's Union for Civil Liberties Vs CBI Criminal
Revision No. 339 of 1996

12. Kuldeep Singh Vs St. of Har.Criminal Revision No.
1030 of 1979

13. Prisoners Rights Forum Vs St. of Tamil Nadu 2019
SCC Online Madras 2476

14. Maulana Mohammad Aamir Rashidi Vs St. of U.P.
& anr. 2012 (2) SCC 382

15. Prabhakar Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2020(11)
SCCC 648

16. Vijai kumar Vs Narendra & ors. 2002 (9) SCC 364

17. Preetpal Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2002 (8) SCC
645

18. Kashmira Singh Vs St. of Punjab 1977 (4) SCC
page 291

19. Babu Singh Vs St. of U.P. 1978 (1) SCC 579

20. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan & anr.
2004 (7) SCC page 528

21. Chaman Lal Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2004 (7) SCC
525

22. Mauji Ram Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2019 8 SCC 17

23. Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs St. o f U.P. & ors. 2005 (7)
SCC 507

24. Lokesh Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2021 (6) SCC
753

25. Data Ram Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2018 (3)
SCC 22

26. Kishori Lal Vs Roopa & ors. 2004 (7) SCC 638
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

(C.M. Bail Application No. 137168 of 2021)

1. This First Bail application has been filed
along with Criminal Appeal No.1588 of 2021 by
the appellant Indra Pratap Tiwari against the
judgement and order dated 18.10.21 passed by
the
III
Additional
Sessions
Judge
Faizabad/Ayodhya in Special Case number
3012/2018; for suspension of sentence and
conviction.

The facts of the case in brief are that
on the basis of a letter sent by the Principal of
Saket Postgraduate Degree College Ayodhya
Sri
Yaduvansh
Ram
Tripathi,
to
the
Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent
of Police directed PS Ram Janmabhoomi,
Ayodhya, to register FIR and investigate. The
FIR 24/1992 was registered on 18.02.1992
under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.,
against three accused of which we are
concerned only with facts of the present case.
Charge
Sheet
was
submitted
after
investigation. The allegation in the FIR was
that the appellant had submitted forged
marksheet of BSc. part II and was promoted in
BSc. part III in the said College on the basis
of such forged mark sheet. Three prosecution
witnesses were examined. PW1 was the Office
52 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Superintendent in Saket Degree College and
he stated on the basis of documentary
evidence i.e. Register maintained of marks
obtained by all students in examinations held
in the College that the appellant had failed in
BSc. part II examination in 1990 but had taken
admission BSc. part III on the basis of mark
sheet showing him to have passed. PW2 was
the Senior Assistant (Confidential) in the
Faizabad University, and on the basis of
documentary
evidence
available
in
the
University proved that the appellant had failed
in BSc. part II examination held in the
College. P.W.3 was the Head Moharrir of the
Police Station concerned and had proved the
handwriting of the then Head Moharrir who
had noted the F.I.R. and Investigating Officer
who had submitted the charge sheet. The
learned Trial Court gave opportunity to the
appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to submit
his evidence. Except for statement on oath that
he had not taken the help of any forged mark
sheet to take admission in BSc. part III in
Saket
Degree
College
no
documentary
evidence was produced by the appellant to
disprove the prosecution charge that despite
having failed in BSc. part II the appellant had
shown himself to have passed in the said
examination, and on the basis of forged mark
sheet had taken admission in BSc. part III in
the said College. The learned Trial Court
having found all three accused guilty of
forging their mark sheets of different years
while studying in Saket Degree College and
taking admission in the next class on the basis
thereof found the charge of Sections 420, 468
and 471 I.P.C. proved. After hearing the
counsel for the accused on the quantum of
punishment, the learned Trial Court directed
them to serve three years imprisonment along
with fine for being guilty under Section 420
IPC, five years imprisonment along with fine
for being guilty under Section 468 IPC, and
two years Imprisonment along with fine for
having been found guilty under Section 471
IPC all the three sentences were to run
concurrently.

2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate,
Shri I.B. Singh assisted by Sri Dharmendra
Misra for the appellant, learned A.G.A. Shri S.
P. Tiwari, for the State, and Shri H.G.S. Parihar,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish
Kumar Singh for the objector Junaid Ahmad
(hereinafter referred to as Objectior-1) and Shri
Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate for another
objector Brijendra Pratap Singh (hereinafter
referred to as Objector-2).

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has
mentioned three grounds mainly for challenge to
the order under appeal . Firstly, it has been
argued that the Trial of the case is vitiated on the
ground that it was tried and decided by an
incompetent Court. The charge against the
applicant was for offences under Sections 420,
468, 471 I.P.C., which are triable by a
Magistrate. Appeal against such order is
maintainable before before the Sessions Court.
In the light of orders passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay
versus Union of India and Others, Writ
Petition Civil No. 699 of 2016, the Allahabad
High Court proposed the formation of one
special MP/MLA Sessions Court at Allahabad
for which notification was issued on 21.08.2018.
Later on the Allahabad High Court circulated
two letters dated 26.09.2018 and 19.10.2018,
whereby all District Judges were directed to
transfer all pending cases relating to MPs and
MLAs to Special Sessions Court at Allahabad.
On 4.12.2018 the Supreme Court directed all
States to create one Special Sessions Court and
one Special Magisterial Court in each district in
order to dispose of all pending criminal cases
relating to sitting and former legislators on a
priority basis. In the State of U.P. till date no
Special Magisterial Court for MP / MLAs has
been formed. This fact was noticed by the
Supreme Court in its latest order dated
11 All. Indra Pratap Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
53
24.11.2021 passed in writ petition filed by
Mohammed Azam Khan challenging his Trial
by the Special Sessions Court instead of by a
Magistrate at Rampur.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant
has argued about the prejudice caused to the
Appellant due to Trial conducted by the
Additional Sessions Judge. It has been argued
that the appellant 1) has lost the opportunity of
one appeal before the Sessions Judge. 2)The
procedure for warrant Trial by a Magistrate is
given in chapter XIX, Section 238 -250 of the
Cr.P.C. 3) Under chapter XVIII Sections 225 -
237, provide for Trial by Sessions Court.
Therefore wrong procedure has been adopted for
prosecution of the appellant. 4) It has been
submitted that the appellant cannot be treated as
a separate class, because of an illegal
Notification issued by the High Court, which has
already been set aside by the Supreme Court
And he cannot be discriminated against in the
matter of his Trial, as opposed to other similarly
situated persons. 5) It has been submitted that
the Supreme Court has already expunged the
proceedings before the Sessions Judge, while
directing the matter to be decided by the
Magistrate from the stage from which the file
was sent to the Additional Sessions Judge.

5. It has been argued that the case of the
appellant being triable by the Court of
Magistrate, it's Trial was transferred to a
DJ/Special Judge MP/MLA Court in September
2019 by an order of the High Court dated
22.08.2019. The learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance upon judgement
rendered in A.R. Antulay versus R.S. Naik, AIR
1988 SC 1531 where the Supreme Court had
quashed the proceedings because the Trial was
not conducted by the competent Court although
such Trial had been ordered by the Supreme
Court itself.

6. The Supreme Court had observed in
A.R. Antulay (supra) that "having regard to the
enormity of the consequences of the error to the
Appellant and by reason of the fact that the
directions were given Suo Moto,We do not find
there is anything which can detract from the
power of the Court to review its judgement Ex
Debito Justitiae. "In case injustice has been
caused.
No
Court,
however
high,
has
jurisdiction to give an order unwarranted by the
Constitution" and therefore, the order dated
16.02.1984 was recalled by the Supreme Court
in order to rectify that injustice in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant
read out para 8,9, and 10, And 11 of the order
dated 24.11.2021 passed by the Supreme Court
in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay case. The
observation- "we further direct the cases triable
my Magistrates which are pending before the
Sessions Court in view of the circular dated 16
August 2019 shall stand transferred to the Court
of competent jurisdiction. However, the entire
record and proceedings shall be transferred to
the Court of the designated Magistrate and the
proceedings shall commence from the stage
which has been reached prior to the transfer of
the proceedings, as a consequence of which the
Trial shall not have to commence afresh."; has
been read out by the learned counsel for the
appellant to argue that the Supreme Court had
expressed an opinion that "the proceedings shall
commence from the stage which has been
reached prior to the transfer of the proceedings"
should be read in isolation by this Court to mean
that the Supreme Court has expunged all the
proceedings which have taken place in the
Sessions Court and the Trial would commence
from the stage it had reached in the Court of the
Magistrate prior to the wrong transfer of the
proceedings by the notification of the High
Court.
54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. This Court cannot interpret the phrase as
pointed out repeatedly by the learned counsel for
the appellant in the manner in which it has been
sought to be interpreted as it would render the
later phrase "as a consequence of which the
Trial shall not have to come in afresh"
redundant and otiose.

9. Secondly, it has been submitted that
registration of one single FIR for three different
offences, against three different persons for
offences committed at three different times was
not maintainable. It has been argued that the
allegation of the complainant, the Principal of
Saket Degree, College related to three different
alleged occurrences where three different
students at three different points of time,
studying in three different courses run by the
College, had allegedly forged the mark sheet for
admission/promotion to the next class. There
was no allegation of conspiracy or abetment
among the three Persons. They were not even
distantly related. None of the occurrences were
connected to each other or a part of the same
transaction. As per Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure the FIR should relate to the
commission of "an offence" and not many
offences which are not correlated to each other.

10. It was argued that an F.I.R. was lodged
on 18.02.1992 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C. at PS Ram Janma Bhumi Ayodhya
Faizabad by the Principal of Saket Degree
College against three students referring to earlier
letter sent by him to the Superintendent of
Police, Faizabad. The F.I.R. stated that three
persons had forged their marksheets and taken
admission in the next year of their degree
courses although they had failed. The first such
person was Phoolchand Yadav who had taken
B.Sc. part I examination in 1986 with Roll
number 60999, his result showed him failed. He
took back paper and then made interpolation in
the back paper mark sheet to show himself, as
passed. As a result, he took admission in B.Sc.
Part II in the following year. Similarly, Indra
Pratap Tiwari, the appellant herein, had taken
B.Sc. Part II examination in 1990 with Roll
number 4263. He failed but showed himself as
passed and took admission in B.Sc. Part III in
the following session on the basis of a forged
mark sheet. He was also elected Secretary of the
Students Union. When this fact came to the
knowledge of the University he was sent a
notice to which he failed to reply. Consequently,
the University struck off his name as a student
and also cancelled his Election as Secretary of
the Students Union. Shree Krupa Nidhan Tiwari
took LLB first year examination in 1989 with
Roll number 91570, he was declared failed but
he showed himself to be passed by forging the
mark sheet and took admission in LLB second
year in academic year 1990-91.

11. It has been further submitted that Code
of Criminal Procedure defines how a Court
should exercise its power in such a case where
one single FIR are has been lodged. Under
Section 221 and 223 of the Cr.P.C. it is provided
that separate charges shall be framed against
separate accused persons and the Trials should
be conducted separately. The accused however
were tried jointly in violation of such procedure.
It has been argued that under Section 464
Cr.P.C. if the Court of appeal finds that the
charge framed against the accused person had
some irregularity or error in it, then it may direct
a new Trial to be conducted.

12. Thirdly, it has also been submitted that
conviction of the appellant is based upon
allegedly forged document that is photocopy of a
mark sheet. The marksheet was never produced
in the original before the learned Trial Court, it
was never proved by any witness in accordance
with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
The learned Trial Court convicted the appellant
on the basis of Secondary Evidence in gross
violation of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The appellant had been tried and convicted
11 All. Indra Pratap Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
55
in violation of the procedure established by law
which vitiates the entire proceedings. It has been
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
that three persons were tried together for
different offences and convicted. One of these
three persons had approached this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 1761 of 2021, where after
admitting the Appeal and calling for lower Court
record, a coordinate bench observed that there
were inconsistencies in the statements of
prosecution witnesses and that the appellant had
not misused his liberty when he was on bail
during Trial, and has granted bail to the
appellant Krupa Nidhan Tiwari by its order
dated 15.11.2021.

13. The objections filed by the State to the
application moved by the appellant has stated
besides the facts of the case as noticed in the
judgement under Appeal; that against the
appellant I.P. Tiwari a total of 35 criminal cases
are pending. The criminal history of the
appellant has been filed as Annexure to the said
objections showing cases under various Sections
including Sections 307 and 302 pending since
1986, 1991 ,1992 and 1993 up to 2012 at
Various stages in different Courts. Cases under
Section 3 of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act
and Sections 2 & 3 of the U.P. Gangsters Act
have also been repeatedly instituted by the
police in various years.

14. The objector-1 Mohammad Junaid, has
filed an application praying for appropriate
orders to be passed for prosecuting the appellant.
It has been submitted that Objectior-1's Sumo
Jeep was looted on 14.03.1997. F.I.R. was
lodged in Case Crime No.77 of 1997 at P.S.
Singramau at Jaunpur. On 03.06.1997 the
appellant Indra Pratap Tiwari was arrested in
Sonebhadra in Case Crime No. 142 of 1997,
under Sections 302 and 506 I.P.C. The looted
jeep of the objector-1 was recovered from his
possession. Thereafter the police submitted
charge-sheet against the appellant in Case Crime
No.77 of 1997 at Jaunpur. While being arrested
in Case Crime No.142 of 1997 at Sonebhadra,
the appellant claimed to be resident of Village
Gauhaniya P.S. Haraiyya, District Basti, and
was released on bail giving the said fake
address. He could not be traced later on as his
residence was actually in village Baraipara, P.S.
Maharajganj, District Faizabad. The appellant
never appeared in Case Crime No.77 of 1997.
Non bailable warrant was issued and process
under Section 82 and 83 was also issued by the
Trial Court in District Jaunpur. The appellant
thereafter managed the loot of Court records
from the office of the Judicial Magistrate-IInd,
at Jaunpur for which FIR was registered as case
Case Crime No.117 of 2016 at P.S. Line Bazar,
District Jaunpur under the signature of the
Judicial Magistrate-IInd, Jaunpur. When the file
of case Crime number 77 of 1997 could not be
traced, the objector-1 filed a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.29263 of 2018,
Mohammad Junaid Versus State of U.P. and this
Court directed reconstruction of the record and
to conclude the Trial proceedings of the
concerned case within a period of six months
without granting any unnecessary adjournments.
The then Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Jaunpur,
reconstructed the file and summoned the
accused through order dated 22.06.2019. Despite
best efforts of the police, the legislator I.P.
Tiwari could not be produced before the Trial
Court at Jaunpur. Later on news was received
that he was incarcerated in jail on being
convicted on 18.10.2021. The Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Jaunpur thereafter
issued Bailable warrant against I.P. Tiwari to
facilitate the hearing of Case Crime No.77 of
1997 at Jaunpur.

15. It has been submitted by Objector 1
that the Appellant has been absconding from the
Trial proceedings for last 25 years and thus the
Objector 1, had locus to file application
objecting to the prayer for grant of bail made by
the appellant in this appeal as per law settled by
56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Versus
Prahlad Jat and Others Criminal Appeal
No.499 of 2014 decided on 15.09.2017, and
Naveen Singh Versus State of U.P. AIR Online
2021 Supreme Court 138. It has further been
submitted by Shri H.G.S. Parihar that in Case
Crime No.24/1992, in which he has been
ultimately convicted, the appellant misused his
position and moved repeated applications under
Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. and never appeared
before the Trial Court. He moved applications
on 26.07.2005, 17.11.2011 and 05.05.2017, true
copies of which have been filed as Annexures to
the objections. In all three applications the
appellant stated that he had no information about
pendency of the case relating to his fake
marksheet. It has been pointed out by Shri
H.G.S. Parihar that the appellant contested U.P.
Assembly Elections thrice, in 2007, 2012 and
lastly in the year 2017, and in all the three
affidavits filed by him before the Election
Commission Case Crime No.24 of 1992 was
mentioned, but in the application submitted by
him under Section 70 (2) in 2011 and 2017, he
showed that he was unaware of the Case relating
to fake marksheet being pending.

16. It has been argued by Sri H.G.S.
Parihar that the appellant never sought regular
bail but only filed applications under Section 70
(2) for recall of non-bailable warrants issued by
the learned Trial Court to ensure his presence.
Each time he succeeded also in getting Non
bailable warrants recalled. In Naveen Singh
Versus State of U.P. and Others, the appellant
had approached the Supreme Court against grant
of bail by the High Court to Respondent No.2
who was accused of forging Court records and
showing himself as acquitted in Sessions Trial.
The appellant was opposed by the Respondent
No.2 on the ground that he had no locus to
oppose the grant of bail secured by the
Respondent No.2. It was submitted that he was
neither the complainant nor the affected person
from the alleged offence in Case Crime No.433
of 2019. On the contrary he had a personal
motive in keeping the accused behind the bars.
The application was politically motivated as the
appellant was a third person who was not
connected with the matter under consideration
and had a personal axe to grind. The Supreme
Court having heard the appellant on the merits
of the order passed by the High Court granting
bail to the Respondent No.2 and also the counsel
for the Respondent No.2 objecting to such
appeal being filed, observed that the Respondent
No.2 is facing Trial for offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC in which FIR
was lodged by the District and Sessions Judge,
Unnao, at the directions of the High Court in
another case. It observed in Paragraph 8.4 that
so far as submissions on behalf of the accused
regarding locus of the appellant is concerned the
Court had considered the fact that it was the
appellant who approached the High Court
alleging tampering of Court record by the
Respondent No.2 accused and thereafter the
Court had directed the learned Additional
Session Judge, Unnao, to submit his comments.
The Session Judge submitted his enquiry report
on the basis of which FIR was lodged therefore
it could not be said that the appellant had no
locus to file the present application for
cancellation of bail. It further observed: "Even
otherwise in a case like this, allegations of
tampering with Court order and for whatever
reason the State has not filed the cancellation of
bail application, locus is not that much
important and it is insignificant."

17. In Ratan Lal Versus Prahlad Jat and
others Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2014 decided
on
15.09.2017, the
Supreme
Court
was
considering an appeal filed by a private person
seemingly not the affected person, against an
order passed by the High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. setting aside order passed by the
Additional
Sessions
Judge
rejecting
the
application of the accused filed under Section
311 Cr.P.C. The locus of the appellant was
11 All. Indra Pratap Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
57
challenged by the respondent alleging that the
High Court''s order could have been challenged
by the State and not by private appellant. The
Supreme Court referred to the Blacks Law
Dictionary and the meaning assigned to the term
"locus standi" and then observed that the
orthodox rule of interpretation regarding locus
standi of a person to reach the Court has
undergone a sea change with the development of
Constitutional
law
in
India,
and
the
Constitutional Courts have been adopting a
liberal approach in dealing with cases and
rejecting objections raised merely on hyper
technical ground of locus standi. It was observed
thus:-

"It is now well settled that if a person is
found to be not merely a stranger to the case, he
cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not
having locus standi." The Supreme Court observed
that, "in criminal Trial the locus standi of the
complainant is a concept which is completely
foreign. Anyone can set the criminal law in motion
except where the statute enacting or creating an
offence indicates to the contrary." Supreme Court
referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in the
case of A.R. Antulay Versus Ramdas Srinivas
Naik 1984 (2) SCC 500, where the Supreme Court
had observed that the general principle regarding
criminal law being set in motion by any person is
founded upon a policy that an offence, that is, an
act or omission made punishable by law for the
time being in force, is not merely an offence
committed in relation to the person who suffers the
harm but it is also an offence against the society.
The society for peaceful development is interested
in the punishment of the offender. Penal statutes
are enacted for the larger good of the society, and
the right to initiate proceedings cannot be whittled
down or circumscribed or fettered by putting it into
a straitjacket formula of locus standi unknown to
criminal jurisprudence.

18. The Supreme Court also referred to
judgement rendered by it in Manohar Lal
Versus Dinesh Anand and Others 2001 (5)
SCC 407 and Arunachalam Versus PSR
Sadananantham and Others 1979 (2) SCC 297
that although it is the duty of the State to get the
culprit booked for the offence committed by
him, if the State fails in this regard and the party
having bona fide connection with the cause of
action, who is aggrieved by the order of the
Court, cannot be left at the mercy of the State
and without any option to approach the appellate
Court to seek justice. The Supreme Court
granted special leave to appeal and also allowed
the appeal thereafter.

19. Sri Brijendra Pratap Singh the Objector
2 has taken almost common grounds to
challenge the bail application moved by the
appellant. His locus standi disclosed in his
affidavit is only that he is a student of Kamta
Prasad Sunderlal Saket Postgraduate College,
and that he was worried that the practice adopted
by the appellant shall be followed by other
students also thus lowering the standards of
education and morals in the society. He came to
know on enquiry that the appellant and two
other students had forged their mark sheets and
an F.I.R. was lodged by the Principal of the
College in 1992, but Trial could not be
concluded
expeditiously.
He
preferred
a
Criminal Miscellaneous Case Number 5762 of
2018 under Section 483 Cr.P.C., praying for
early disposal of the Trial. This Court by its
order dated 20.09.2018 directed the learned Trial
Court to decide the case within a period of six
months.

20. It has been argued by Sri Sushil Kumar
Singh
that
Locus
standi
in
criminal
jurisprudence is of no relevance. The appellant
was wanted in Trials pending in Basti,
SoneBhadra, Jaunpur, Faizabad and many other
districts of U.P., and he was a sitting legislator
of the ruling political party and he could not be
allowed to make a mockery of the judicial
process by not only managing to snatch and loot
58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court records but to place false information
before the district Court and before the High
Court as well.

21. The counsel for the Objector 2 referred
to the appellant managing to get a rifle license
number 54 from district Basti by giving a fake
address. On this fake identity bail applications
were filed by him but presence of the appellant
could not be ensured by the Court concerned
later on because of deliberate misrepresentation
regarding his identity and true address. Sri S.K.
Singh has also pointed out how in case crime
number 142 of 1997 under Section 302 and 506
I.P.C. in Sonebhadra on 03.06.1997, the weapon
of attack was the same rifle which was issued
from district Basti. After gaining knowledge of
fake identity being used to obtain the arms
license, the District Magistrate Basti has
cancelled the arms license but this rifle license
has not yet been surrendered till date by the
appellant.

22. Almost the same facts have been
mentioned in the application of the Objector 2,
as have been mentioned by Objector 1 regarding
filing of repeated applications for recall of nonbailable warrant orders before the Trial Court at
Faizabad. Also, it has been submitted that after
bailable warrants were issued by the learned
Trial Court in Jaunpur on 22.10.2021 in Case
Crime NO. 77 of 1997, the jail authorities have
not yet produced the appellant before the learned
Trial Court at Jaunpur though the date fixed was
9.11.21. It has been argued that the reason for
this is not far to seek. The Appellant is in jail
since 18.10.2021 and his Bail application is
pending before the High Court. As soon as he is
released on bail, he shall again abscond and
Trial pending at Jaunpur since 1997 in Crime
Nos. 77 and at Sonebhadra in Case Crime No.
142 of 1997 will again remain pending. The
objector 2 has disclosed a criminal case history
of 40 cases instead of 35 as mentioned in the
counter affidavit filed by the State of UP.

23. The learned counsel for the appellant
has
objected
vehemently
to
the
Court
entertaining objections by the said Objectors 1
and 2, Mohammed Junaid and Brijendra Pratap
Singh. It has been submitted that the Court is
considering a criminal appeal filed under Code
of Criminal Procedure, and it is neither a Public
Interest Litigation nor a Section 482 Petition,
wherein inherent power of the High Court can
be exercised to secure the ends of justice. It has
been argued that in the Cr.P.C. one amendment
has been carried out in 2019 giving the right to
the victim only to file an appeal and to be heard
through Public Prosecutor in Trial or appeal. No
right to be heard has been extended to any
stranger who is not even claiming to be a victim
in criminal appeal. The applications of two
objectors should be rejected by this Court
outrightly.

24. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant that Mohammad Junaid
is a close associate and a gang member of
renowned mafia who is presently in jail at Banda
where he was transferred from Punjab on the
directions of the Supreme Court. The bail
application is being contested vehementally by
such Objectors only to ensure that the right of
the
appellant
to
contest
the
upcoming
Legislative Assembly elections is prejudiced.

25. It has been argued that such Objectors
do not have any locus as they do not fall within
the definition of victim as per Section 2(wa) of
the Code. Section 2(wa) defines a victim "as a
person who has suffered any loss or injury
caused by reason of the act or omission for
which the accused person has been charged,"
and the expression victim includes his or her
legal heir. None of the Objectors can be said to
be victims and thus they have no right to be
heard. The Supreme Court has observed in many
cases that victim shall be a person who has
suffered any "loss or injury" due to the alleged
crime and some element of personal injury must
11 All. Indra Pratap Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.
59
be involved. Since the Objectors have no locus
standi, their affidavits filed in support of such
objections should be ignored by this Court.
Objecting to the locus of Brijendra Pratap Singh,
the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
he is only 25 years of age and was not even born
at the time when the appellant was studying in
Saket Degree College and had allegedly forged
his mark sheet to get promoted from BSc. part II
to BSc. part III. Only because Brijendra Pratap
Singh is a student of Saket Degree College, he
cannot claim any locus to oppose the bail
application of the appellant. Both the Objectors
have been set up by the political rivals of the
appellant namely Mukhtar Ansari and Abhay
Singh respectively.

26. The learned counsel for the appellant
has placed reliance upon Thakur Ram and
others versus state of Bihar 1966 (2) SCR 740,
and has read out paragraph 9 thereof, with
regard to the observations regarding right of
third-party to be heard in a criminal Trial. The
Supreme Court observed that in a case which
has proceeded on a police report a private party
has really no locus standi . The criminal law is
not to be used as an instrument of wreaking
private vengeance by an aggrieved party against
the person who, according to that party, has
caused injury to it. Barring a few exceptions, in
family matters the party who is treated as the
aggrieved party is the State which is the
custodian of the social interests of the
community at large and so it is for the State to
take all the steps necessary for bringing the
person who has acted against the social interests
of the community to book."

27. The counsel for the appellant has placed
reliance
upon
judgement
rendered
in
Shivakumar versus Hukam Chand and another
1999 (7) SCC 467 where it was observed that "it
is not merely an overall supervision which the
Public Prosecutor is expected to perform in such
cases when a privately engaged counsel is
permitted to act on his behalf. The role which a
private counsel in such a situation can play is,
perhaps, comparable to that of a Junior
advocate conducting the case of a senior in a
Court, on behalf of the Public Prosecutor albeit
the fact that he is engaged in the case for a
private party. If the role of the public prosecutor
is allowed to shrink to a mere supervisory role
the Trial would become a combat between the
private party and the Accused which would
render the legislative mandate in Section 225 of
the Code a dead letter".

28. Learned Counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance upon judgement of a Full Bench
of Delhi High Court rendered in Ramphal versus
State in Criminal Appeal No.1415 of 2012 on
28.05.2015. The Full Bench was considering the
scope of the term "victim" and whether it would
mean only legal heirs entitled to the property of
the victim under the law applicable of
inheritance, or would embrace any person who
has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason
of the act or omission for which the accused
person had been charged. The Court considered
the definition given of the term victim Under
Section 2 (wa) of the Cr.P.C. and also the terms
"loss "or "injury "which have not been defined
under the Cr.P.C. but have been defined by the
I.P.C. Under Section 44 "injury "is defined as
"any harm whatever illegally caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or property"
"loss "is defined in terms of wrongful loss and
refers to "loss by unlawful means of property to
which the person losing it is legally entitled." It
was observed by the Bench that injury as
defined, does not only include physical harm
resulting from the offence as there can be direct
and proximate emotional injuries equally
resulting from the crime. It referred to
judgement rendered by a Constitution Bench in
PSR Sadanantham Versus Arunachalam 1980
(3) SCC 141 on the "standing" of a private
person other than a complainant under Section
191 (a) to appeal against an acquittal. The
60 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question faced by the Supreme Court in the said
case was "whether a private citizen (the brother
of the deceased victim) could appeal by way of
special leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India against an order of
acquittal of the petitioner in that case." The
Supreme Court granted leave, allowed the
appeal and restored the conviction and sentence
of the Trial Court. The convicted petitioner
approached the Supreme Court invoking its Writ
jurisdiction contending that the Supreme Court''s
order was a nullity as it lacked jurisdiction. The
Supreme Court observed in Paragraph-24 that
"in India the criminal law envisages the State as
the
prosecutor.
Under
the
Cr.P.C.,
the
machinery of the State is set in motion on
information received by the police or on a
complaint filed by a private person before a
Magistrate. If the case results in an acquittal the
right to appeal against the acquittal is closely
circumscribed. Under the old Code of Criminal
Procedure the State was entitled to appeal to the
High Court. The complainant could do so only if
granted special leave to appeal by the High
Court." The right of appeal was not given to
other interested persons. After referring to the
Law Commission of India's recommendation the
Supreme Court observed "We think that the
Court should entertain a special leave petition
filed by a private party, other than the
complainant, in those cases only where it is
convinced that the public interest justifies an
appeal against the acquittal and that the State
has refrained from petitioning for special leave
for reasons which do not bear on the public
interest but are prompted by private influence,
lack of bona fide and other extraneous
considerations. We would restrict accordingly
the right of a private party, other than the
complainant, to petition for special leave against
an order of acquittal.