Allahabad High Court

NITESH PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 25 March 2026
Bench: SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV

Holding

The court held that, due to the lack of substantive evidence, the delay in filing the FIR, and the appellant’s clean record, bail must be granted and the order rejecting bail set aside.

Summary

The appellant Nitesh Pandey was charged under several IPC offences and Section 3(1)(d) of the SC/ST Act, with the FIR lodged seven months after the alleged incident. He contended that he was falsely implicated, citing lack of medical evidence, absence of independent witnesses, and no proof of any financial transaction or threat. The Special Judge had rejected his bail application, leading to an appeal under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The High Court examined the nature of the offences, the evidentiary gaps, the delay in filing the FIR, and the appellant’s clean criminal record, concluding that the bail rejection was infirm. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court’s order, granted bail subject to standard conditions, and directed verification of sureties. The decision underscores the principle that bail may be granted when evidence is weak and the accused does not pose a risk of tampering or intimidation.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the appellant under Section 14‑A(2) of the SC/ST Act given the nature of the alleged offences and the evidentiary record.
Whether the seven‑month delay in lodging the FIR warrants a denial of bail.
Whether the appellant poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 406, 420, 504, 506
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 14-A(2), 3(1)(d)

Subjects

bail
SC/ST Act
delay in FIR
false implication
evidence
witness intimidation
criminal procedure

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 991 of 2026

Nitesh Pandey
.....Appellant(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Hare Ram Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brajesh Kumar Singh, G.A.

Court No. - 50
HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hare Ram Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA as well as perused the entire record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the
appellant - Nitesh Pandey to set aside the bail rejection order dated
18.12.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna
in Bail Application No.3512 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.425 of
2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)d,
dha of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Tarya, District- Kushinagar with a further prayer
to enlarge the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not
committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He further
submits that the alleged incident took place on 21.3.2020 and the
impugned FIR was lodged on 19.10.2020 at about delay of seven months
and there is no explanation for the said delay. He submits that it is
admitted that the the visa was genuine. He further submits that neither the
applicant has received money nor provide any ticket or visa to the
informant and neither the applicant nor his father has threatened or abused
the informant. There is no medical to prove the alleged incident. There is
no independent witness of the alleged incident. Learned counsel for the
appellant further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality
CRLA No. 991 of 2026
2

warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail
since 15.11.2025 having no criminal history.

4. On the other hand, learned AGA has opposed the application for bail
but could not dispute the submission raised by learned counsel for the
appellant.

5. 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.

6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting
the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

7. Let the appellant- Nitesh 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.

8. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)
March 26, 2026
Krishna*

Digitally signed by :-
KRISHNA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…