HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Case :- BAIL No. – 11522 of 2019
Applicant :- Munna @ Santlal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Tiwari,Jaikaran
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A
Hon’ble Anil Kumar,J.
In view of Corona Virus epidemic, appearance of learned counsel for parties has been dispensed with owing to the lockdown and the bail is being decided on the basis of material available on record.
Perused the first information report and other relevant material available on record. In the present case, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed.
Bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.329 of 2019, under Sections 377 IPC 3/4 POSCO Act, Police Station – Gauriganj, District – Amethi.
From the perusal of the record, the facts and grounds which are taken by the applicant for considering his bail application are as under:-
(a) That the informant is the nephew of the accused-applicant.
(b) The accused-applicant has four married daughters. All are living at their matrimonial houses and the applicant wants to execute a will-deed in favour of his daughters. The complainant time and again pressurized him not to execute will deed. However, he does not succumb with the demand and pressure exercised by the complainant not to execute the will deed, so with oblique motive and purpose, the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged only in order to harass and defame him.
(c) In the present case, the alleged victim is of 5 years old and from the statement given by him under Section 161 164 Cr.P.C., the position which emerged out is that the same has been given at the behest of the complainant.
(d) From the medical examination report dated 02.08.2019, it is clearly stated that there is no opinion of un-natural sex and neither any external nor internal injury received on the body of the victim.
(e) Applicant has no previous criminal history.
So, the bail may be granted to him.
In the present case, the State has filed a counter affidavit wherein the State has not disputed the medical report. Further, in the said counter affidavit, it is also not disputed by the State that the victim and the informant are related to each other and the applicant has not previous criminal history.
Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant and submission made in the bail application,without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, particularly since no reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses has been alleged, prima facie, this Court finds, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Munna @ Santlal, involved in Case Crime No.329 of 2019, under Sections 377 IPC 3/4 POSCO Act, Police Station – Gauriganj, District – Amethi, 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 concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court of Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(vii) Difficulty arising in arranging of sureties because of lockdown has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.564 of 2020. Directions issued therein shall be applicable in the present case which are as follows:-
“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 :- 20.4.2020