Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Bhuwan Raj, AOR, Ms. Manju Savita, Adv., Ms. Anushka Garg, Adv., Mr. Satish Kushwaha, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, AOR, Mr. Beenu Sharma, Adv., Mr. Venkat Narayan, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The petitioner, Sultan Ahmad Khan, was convicted and sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment for offenses under Sections 366, 367, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (!) .

2. The High Court of Allahabad declined to suspend the sentence and refused bail pending the appeal (!) .

3. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, which observed that the appeal was filed in 2024 and was pending, with a significant delay likely to continue (!) .

4. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had already served approximately 1 year and 7 months of his sentence (!) .

5. The Court emphasized that, given the relatively fixed term of 7 years and the delay in the appeal process, the petitioner’s right to bail should be considered favorably (!) .

6. The Court found that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the near future, and there was a risk that the petitioner might serve the entire sentence before the appeal is decided (!) .

7. Consequently, the Supreme Court ordered that the substantive order of sentence be suspended and that the petitioner be released on bail pending the final disposal of his appeal, subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court (!) .

8. The petition was disposed of accordingly, along with any pending applications (!) .

These points highlight the Court’s consideration of the delay in proceedings, the length of the sentence, and the petitioner’s current time served as grounds for granting bail pending appeal.