Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate, along with Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika and Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Jitendra Kumar with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 11 of 2020, under Sections- 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station - Sikandarabad, District - Bulandshahr, during pendency of trial.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

(i) against FIR lodged on 7.1.2020, the applicant is in confinement since 17.1.2020;

(ii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

(iii) as to criminal history, it appears that along with the present case, certain other cases have already been registered against the applicant;

(iv) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that, in the present case crime number, the main accused are Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal, who were the beneficiaries of the lease deed claimed by them. The present applicant was neither a lessee nor he had executed that deed nor he was a marginal witness to the same. Merely because he is a husband of one of the beneficiary i.e. Geeta Devi, he cannot be accused of manipulation in the lease deed claimed by Geeta Devi. Second, it has been submitted, in any case, co-accused Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal have approached this Court by means of Crl.M. Writ Petition No. 1804 of 2020, wherein this Court had stayed the arrest of co-accused Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal during pendency of the investigation. The Court has observed as under:

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner has obtained an interim order in Writ C No.9354 of 2018 whereby the respondents have been restrained from demolishing or interfering in the possession of the petitioner over plot No.633/2 area 0.6.0 biswa. It has been submitted that under the circumstances, the lodging of the F.I.R. is not justified at all and if the respondents are aggrieved, then they should have filed an application for vacation of the interim order.

(v) The investigation is stated to be still pending. The applicant has remained confined for more than four months and it is not likely that the investigation may conclude at an early date in view of the prevailing situation arising from lockdown on account of Covid-19. As to the execution of the lease deed, it has been submitted that none of the deed has been executed by the applicant but by his father. The matter is also stated to be subjudice in certain writ petitions and, therefore, the applicant claims that he has become entitled to bail.

5. The bail application of the applicant has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA and learned counsel for the Nagar Palika, who would submit that this is not a stray case of one forged sale deed but a case where not less than 11 similar lease deeds have been executed, atleast three of which had been executed in favour of the present applicant. In any case, the applicant is the main perpetrator as he had acted as the pairokar in most of the writ petitions filed by the lessee. Also, it has been stated that the petitioners (applicant in the present case) writ petition being Writ- B No. 43509 of 2014 was dismissed with cost vide order dated 1.12.2014. In that regard, learned counsel for the applicant has clarified that the said writ petition was with respect to another lease deed and, in any case, a review petition has been filed against the order dated 1.12.2014.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, while considering the present bail application, a primary focus has to remain on the allegation made in the FIR. Though, according to the informant, the applicant may have been involved in other similar occurrences, the FIR giving rise to the present bail application is with respect to specific plot and lease deed which were in favour of Geeta Devi and Ratan Pal. It is in that context that the stay order granted by this Court becomes relevant. Having observed the pendency of the civil dispute, the Division Bench has considered it proper to stay the arrest of those accused during pendency of the investigation. It remains a fact with reference to the allegation made in the FIR that the applicant is not a beneficiary but only husband of one of the beneficiary. He has remained confined to four months and the investigation is also pending. No special ground has been disclosed to continue the detention of the applicant for an indefinite period. Thus, the applicant has become entitled to bail, at this stage, though on heavy sureties, which are provided in the interest of the pending investigation as also in view of the other allegations that appear to be existing against the applicant.

7. This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 ( Vijay Pratap Verma v. State of U.P. ) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

8. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Jitendra Kumar 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 (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) 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.

(viii) It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

9. 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 v. 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.