Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22864 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 41686 of 2024 Applicant :- Rohit Singh Thakur Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Arun Srivastav,Vishal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 427, 504, 506, 394 and 120B, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per the allegations in the first information report, the applicant along with twelve others and 150 unknown persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant, and had taken away the mobile phone and Rs. 2 lakh. In the alleged incident, the informant has not received any injury. No injury report is available on record. Vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. It is next contended that co-accused, Hariom Singh and Radhe Shyam, Rajan Rana and Ashish, Gauri Shankar and Rajiv Rana have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.09.2024, 11.09.2024, 19.09.2024 and 25.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applicationt Nos. 34350 of 2024, 33483 of 2024, 32019 of 2024 and 35498 of 2024 respectively. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para nos. 10 to 27 of the bail application and para nos. 4 to 8 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.09.2024 and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has a criminal history. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that vague and general allegations have been levelled against the applicant. In the alleged incident, the informant has not received any injury. No injury report is available on record. co- accused, Hariom Singh and Radhe Shyam, Rajan Rana and Ashish, Gauri Shankar and Rajiv Rana have been granted bail by this Court. 6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history- sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognized by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. 10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State. 11. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than five months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 12. Let the applicant- Rohit Singh Thakur, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iv) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned. 13. 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 :- 18.2.2025 Sachin Mishra Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad