JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present matter arises on the second bail application preferred by the Applicant, Munesh Yadav @ Mukesh Yadav, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his enlargement on bail in connection with FIR No. 217 of 2024 registered under Sections 302, 201, and 120B IPC at Police Station Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. His first bail application was rejected by this Court on 19.02.2025.

2. The allegations against the Applicant are that, in conspiracy with family members, he staged his own death by planting his Aadhaar card and belongings on an unidentified dead body, which was thereafter falsely identified as his own.

3. It is further alleged that to effectuate this design, the Applicant was complicit in the murder of one Maninder Singh, whose body was allegedly passed off as that of the Applicant. The conspiracy is said to have been devised to evade pending criminal cases, financial liabilities, and insurance obligations.

4. The Applicant was arrested in 2022 in connection with FIR No. 660 of 2022, P.S. Roja, District Shahjahanpur, Uttar Pradesh, relating to allegations of impersonation and forgery. Subsequently, on the basis of investigation and statements recorded, FIR No. 217 of 2024 was lodged, implicating him for offences including murder and conspiracy.He has remained in custody since 2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant has advanced elaborate submissions in support of the prayer for bail. It is urged that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The gravamen of the argument is that the prosecution case rests on conjectures and surmises, without any concrete evidence establishing that the unidentified body discovered in July 2015 was that of Maninder Singh, alleged to have been murdered by the Applicant. Counsel stresses that no DNA report or forensic opinion has been placed on record to establish the identity of the deceased. Even the family members of the alleged deceased never identified the body, and such omission renders the foundation of the prosecution story inherently weak.

6. It is further argued that there is an inordinate delay of almost nine years in lodging FIR No. 217 of 2024. According to the Applicant, such unexplained delay creates serious doubt as to the bona fides of the prosecution case. The complainant and other alleged witnesses did not lodge any missing persons report in 2015 when Maninder Singh allegedly went missing, which is highly improbable if indeed a close relative had disappeared. Learned counsel submits that this belated attempt to implicate the Applicant after nearly a decade points to an afterthought, possibly motivated by extraneous considerations.

7. Learned counsel for the Applicant has contended that during trial, material witnesses, namely Chandrapal Singh and Vineet Singh Rana, have been examined and both have turned hostile by denying the prosecution version in its entirety. It is submitted that this development shows the case is not supported even by the witnesses cited by the State, and that the foundation of the prosecution’s case is collapsing. Reliance is placed on these subsequent developments as additional grounds not available at the time of the first bail application.

8. It is next urged that several co-accused, namely Rajesh @ Pappu, Bheekam Singh, and Dharampal Yadav, have already been enlarged on bail by the courts below. According to the submission, the principle of parity squarely applies, and the Applicant cannot be singled out merely on the allegation of being a conspirator when there is no direct evidence establishing his involvement.

9. It is further argued that the acts attributed to the Applicant are not materially distinct from those attributed to the co-accused, and that denial of bail to him alone would amount to discrimination. Additionally, it is urged that the Applicant has been in custody since his arrest in 2024, and the trial is likely to take considerable ti