HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10849 of 2025 Court No. - 15 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged recovery of stolen toor dal and a country-made pistol from the possession of the applicant is false, as no independent witness was present at the time of recovery. The offence is triable by a Magistrate. It is contended that merely because the applicant has a criminal history of 37 cases, he has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The applicant has duly explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit. He has been languishing in jail since 14.08.2025. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court indicating that, in his previous criminal cases, the applicant had tampered with evidence or attempted to intimidate witnesses. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in paragraph 30 as follows: Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartik Rawat Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ramesh .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. .....Opposite Party(s) "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." Similarly, in Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the mere pendency of several criminal cases against an accused cannot, by itself, be a ground for refusal of bail. With respect to the applicant’s criminal antecedents, it is not the case of the State that the applicant is likely to tamper with evidence, influence the investigation, or intimidate witnesses during trial. The State has also not produced any material to show that the applicant has previously attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found entitled to bail, it cannot be denied merely on the ground of criminal history. Since no exceptional circumstances based on his antecedents have been shown to justify denial of bail, this Court does not find it appropriate to reject his bail application solely on that basis. Considering the fact that there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, the offence is triable by a Magistrate, the applicant has explained his criminal antecedents in paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit, and he has been languishing in jail since 14.08.2025, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant involved in Case Crime No. 145/2025, Under sections 305(a), 331(4), 317(2) Β.Ν.S/380,457, 411 I.P.C Police Station - Kursi, District- Barabanki, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. BAIL No. 10849 of 2025 2 (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him in accordance with law. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS). It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 11, 2025 R.C. BAIL No. 10849 of 2025 3 (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench