1. Heard Shri Uday Bhan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. None appeared for informant though video link had been sent.
2. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Rameh Rajak, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 340 of 2020, under Sections 376, 387, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 16/17 POCSO Act, Police Station - Prem Nagar, District - Jhansi, during pendency of trial.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:
(i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 376, 387, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 16/17 POCSO Act;
(ii) against the FIR lodged on 04.09.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 19.10.2020;
(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case, he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest;
(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;
(v) chargesheet has been submitted. However, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial.
(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire FIR allegations are false, arising from a failed relationship between the informant and the son of the applicant. In any case, if the entire FIR allegations are taken to be true, there is no case made out against the present applicant. The entire allegations are against Saurabh Rajak both with respect to commission of heinous offence of rape and also IT Act. The only allegation against the applicant is of having not lodged a prosecution against his own son when the informant complained to him;
(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.
4. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ramesh Rajak, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
(vii) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
5. In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:
"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."
Order Date :- 30.4.2021 AHA