Gulam Gausulwara vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that the applicant, who is the Principal of a college, in conspiracy with the co-accused persons and in active connivance with other participating institutions, during the last 5?6 years, received excess allotment of funds in the names of students by showing the same against institutions other than the concerned colleges/schools, thereby misappropriating and usurping public money under the Mid-Day-Meal Yojana in District Balrampur.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is merely the Principal of a college which has received the grant and had no authority whatsoever to allot, sanction, or disburse any grant amount. It is submitted that the process of allotment of funds is undertaken by District Level Officers, including the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Accounts Officer, and the same is finally approved by the District Magistrate through the Chief Development Officer. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has no role in the alleged commission of the offence. It is contended that there is no

¶14

BAIL No. 1055 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

specific allegation against the applicant regarding conversion or misappropriation of funds under the Mid-Day-Meal Scheme. It is further submitted that the applicant had no role whatsoever in the preparation of the Payment Processing Advice (PPA) or in the process of sanctioning or releasing the grant. Learned counsel submits that the applicant merely received the amount disbursed by the District Authorities in the account of the school. It is pointed out that the said account is operated jointly and withdrawals can be made only with the joint signatures of the applicant and the Gram Pradhan, thereby ruling out any unilateral control of the applicant over the funds.

¶17

Learned counsel further submits that the Payment Processing Advice (PPA) and the data relating to the number of children receiving mid-day meals through the Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) are reviewed, examined, verified, signed, and approved at multiple levels by senior officers, involving at least four layers of scrutiny. Despite such multi-level verification and approval, none of the district-level officers involved in the process have been arrayed as accused in the present case, for reasons best known to the prosecution.

¶18

Learned counsel also submits that none of the officers or officials who were actually responsible for sanctioning, approving, and releasing the grant amount have been implicated in the present case.

¶19

It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses if he is enlarged on bail. It is assured that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the proceedings of the trial.

¶20

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application, submitting that the investigation is still in progress. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation suggests that the college headed by the applicant received excess funds on the basis of inflated data, and the applicant, being the Principal, was aware of and benefited from such excess allotment, on account of which the alleged offence could not be detected for several years.

¶21

Upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

¶22

BAIL No. 1055 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

the parties, and having regard to the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate; and that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 27.11.2025, this Court finds the present case to be a fit one for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶26

Let the applicant Gulam Gausulwara , involved in Case Crime No. 0297 of 2025; Under Sections 409 IPC /316(5) of BNS,467 IPC/338 of BNS, 468 IPC/336(3) of BNS 471 IPC/340(2) of BNS, 120 B IPC/61(2) of BNS and 201 IPC / 238 BNS Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur, be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶27

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶28

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶29

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial Court.

¶30

Any other condition(s) which the trial court/concerned court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case, may also be imposed.

¶31

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶32

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶33

February 26, 2026

¶34

R.C.

¶35

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gulam Gausulwara v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Gausulwara v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawal Kishore Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P., Lko. and 3 Others

Arpit Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Panchayat Raj, Lko. and 4 Others

Krishna Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Hari Ram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development, Lko. and 4 Others

Yogesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Vocational Edu. and Skill Development Lko. and Another

Raja Mitti Wala @ Satyendra Sonkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.