HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3316 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Rejoinder affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sugendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anjani Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned State Law Officer and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 1041 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 109, 127(2), 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Jhangha, District - Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. Criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit as he was given the benefit of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and the charge-sheet has been submitted and also no summons have been issued to him in the said cases. 5. Learned counsel has further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 09.12.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Navaneet Kumar Shukla, Ravindra Kumar Chauhan, Sugendra Kumar Yadav, Vikram Shah Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Anjani Kumar Singh, G.A. Sandeep Chauhan Alias Mahakal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant is the main accused person and the bail application of co-accused person Rajesh has already been rejected by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2025 passed in C.M.B.A. No. 4206 of 2025, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. Learned State Law Officer has also opposed the bail application and has pointed out para -9 of the rejoinder affidavit filed today in court whereby criminal history of the applicant claims to be explained. The relevant para- 9(ii) to (v) are reproduced hereunder:- "(ii) That as per the D.C.R.B. report at serial no. 2 case crime No. 130 of 2022 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) da, dha S.C./S.T. Act, police station Jhangaha District Gorakhpur, which belongs to below seven years so Investigating Officer compliance the section 41 and submitted the charge sheet. Thereafter no summon has been received till today hence applicant has not applied for bail. (iii) That as per the D.C.R.B. report at serial no. 3 case crime No. 396 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.police station Jhangaha District Gorakhpur, in which no summon has been issued till today hence the applicant has not applied for bail. (iv) That as per the D.C.R.B. report at serial no. 4 case crime No. 397 of 2022 under sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Jhangaha District Gorakhpur, in which no summon has been issued till today hence the applicant applied for bail. (v) That as per the D.C.R.B. report at serial no. 5 case crime No. 298 of 2024 under sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. police station Jhangaha District Gorakhpur, in which no summon has been issued till today hence the applicant has not applied for bail." 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, severity of punishment and taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained coupled by the fact that bail application of co-accused Rajesh has already been rejected, prima facie I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of BAIL No. 3316 of 2025 2 India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 11. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. September 16, 2025 Siddhant BAIL No. 3316 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad