HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10876 of 2024 Court No. - 87 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Case called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Heard learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.09.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./ST Act, Moradabad in Case Crime No. 385 of 2024, under section, 366, 302, 201 I.P.C and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C/ST (P.A.) Act, at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad. 3. An FIR was lodged by informant on 27.6.2024 against the present appellant and one unknown person wherein she alleged that when her daughter Kamlesh had gone to the forest to throw garbage, she met with appellant and one unknown person who enticed her away. Informant has also stated that Tulsi, who is sister-in-law of her son, witnessed the appellant and other unknown person taking away the deceased on a motorcycle. On the basis of allegation, an FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered against appellant and one unknown person. It will be pertinent to mention that dead body of deceased was recovered on 22.6.2024. The dead body was not claimed or identified by any one and formalities of inquest and postmortem were conducted. As the name and whereabouts of the dead body were not known, her clothes and jewellery were preserved by police. After lodging FIR on 27.6.2024, informant came at police station and identified the clothes and jewellery of deceased and told the police that said clothes and jewellery were that of her deceased daughter. Accordingly appellant Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Rahul Dev Singh, Sarve Nazir, Zafar Abbas Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Vishal Singh Ram Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) was also investigated for the offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that deceased went missing since 22.6.2024, yet no FIR in this regard, was lodged by informant till 27.6.2024. The dead body of deceased was recovered on 24.6.2024 and postmortem was conducted on the very same date. Postmortem reveals that death of deceased has occurred fourteen days before the incident. Learned counsel further submitted that appellant and other accused were seen in the company of appellant on 22.6.2024. If said story of prosecution is admitted, then her time of death contradicts the version of prosecution. Hence, appellant is entitled for bail. 5. Learned AGA for State has opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellant and has submitted that the offence alleged against the appellant is serious and, therefore, he is not entitled to bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. 7. As per prosecution version, deceased along with appellant and one other accused were seen together on 22.6.2024. However, postmortem of deceased suggests that her death had occurred 13-14 days before appellant and deceased were seen together with each other. Considering the fact that the meeting of appellant with deceased has no nexus to the time of death mentioned in the postmortem, circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, and severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. 9. Let the appellant- Ram Singh involved in Case Crime No. 385 of 2024, under section, 366, 302, 201 I.P.C and Section 3 (2) (V) S.C/ST (P.A.) Act, at Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. CRLA No. 10876 of 2024 2 (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 29, 2025 Mukesh CRLA No. 10876 of 2024 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad