HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29772 of 2025 Court No. - 73 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.N. Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2016, under Sections 302, 386, 216, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Rohta, District Meerut during pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on 17.11.2023 but he is pressing the instant second bail on the ground that he is in jail since November, 2016 i.e. for almost nine years but till date trial of the case could not be concluded. 4. He further submits that even as far as merit of the present case is concerned applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation with the aid of Section 120B IPC, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 15 other cases but he has explained entire criminal history in his first bail application. He next submits that the law is settled on the ground of long incarceration an accused should be Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satya Narayan Gupta, Yogendra Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sandeep @ Bhartu .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) released on bail even if he is having long criminal history. 6. He further submits, therefore considering the above facts, applicant may be released on bail. 7. Per contra, learned AGA however opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant and first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed vide order dated 17.11.2023 but it reflects that applicant is in jail since November, 2016 i.e. for almost nine years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned, which is on record and from its perusal, it reflects that till date only eight prosecution witnesses could be examined, therefore, there is no hope of early disposal of the trial, considering the fact that there are 18 prosecution witnesses. 10. Further, from the report of the concerned court, it could not be reflected that applicant is causing delay in trial. Further, even as far as merit of the present case is concerned applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, he has been made accused with the aid of Section 120B IPC. 11. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 15 other cases but law is settled, if court is of the view that on the ground of long incarceration, an accused should be released on bail then his bail application should not be dismissed merely on the basis of his criminal history. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 observed as:- "The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can BAIL No. 29772 of 2025 2 grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents. ................................. " 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 14. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 15. Let the applicant - Sandeep @ Bhartu be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 16. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 17. 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 15, 2025 S.A. BAIL No. 29772 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad