Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138971 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5054 of 2025 Appellant :- Sanjay Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh Yadav,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar,G.A.,Narendra Singh Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J. 1. Despite notice has been served upon respondent no.2 personally, none present on behalf of the respondent no.2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record. 3. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Sanjay Pandey to set aside impugned order dated 7.2.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kaushambi, in First Bail Application No. 21 of 2024 (Sanjay Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) arising out of Case Crime No. 414 of 2018, under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station- Sarai Akil, District- Kaushambi. 4. As per prosecution story, father of the deceased lodged the impugned FIR on 26.10.2018 at about 03:10 PM, under Section 363 IPC against one unknown person, alleging therein that on 22.10.2018 at around 03:30 PM, his son Sagar went missing. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 22.10.2018 whereas the FIR has been lodged after due deliberation and consultation on 26.10.2018 after 4 days of the alleged incident but no plausible explanation regarding delay has been mentioned. Initially, the impugned FIR was lodged under Section 363 IPC and later on, after recovery of the body of the deceased i.e. after 14 days of the alleged incident as well as confessional statement of the appellant, the FIR was converted into under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. He further submits that there is no direct or indirect evidence found against the appellant. As per post-mortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained. He further submits that similarly place co-accused Mahendra Singh, has already been granted bail co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.9.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.612 of 2022. He further submits that there are 18 witnesses and only two witnesses have been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Appellant is languishing in jail since 22.9.2021 having no previous criminal history. He further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant and the nature of injury, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside. 10. Let the appellant- Sanjay Pandey, involved in aforesaid case crime number 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. (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. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Krishna* Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad