HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36853 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)क B.N.S., Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the counsel for the applicant has not explained the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.591 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sambhal and Case Crime No.307 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 411, 414, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal. In addition to it, there are criminal history of six more cases assigned to the applicant, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has no knowledge of the said two cases. In the cases of U.P. Goondas Act and Arms Act, the period of externment has already expired. 6. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025, Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Amber Khanna, Raj Kumar Khanna, Sandal Khanna Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Gulam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) criminal antecedents. Non-disclosure of criminal history itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of bail. The Court directed: "We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/ sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the 'SYNOPSIS' that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition." 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained by the counsel for the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. The instant bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments 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 India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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. October 28, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 36853 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad