Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32239 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7648 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd Muzaffar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Sri Sarfraj Ahmad, learned Advocate has filed short counter affidavit on behalf of the informant. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar, counsel for the applicant; Sri Sarfraj Ahmad, counsel for the informant and Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. The instant bail application, under Section 483 B.N.S.S., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.0374 of 2024, under Sections 504, 506, 386, 341, 307, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 10.05.2024. The first information report was lodged on 29.08.2024. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. In the alleged incident no person received any injury. In the first information report and in the statement of the informant there is no allegation regarding delivery of any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. The necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of extortion are not made out. In support of his submissions reliance has been placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Isaac Isanga Musumba and others vs. State of Maharastra and others (2014) 15 SCC 357. At the time of the alleged offence, the applicant was in jail. Further, the arrest of co- accused Radheyshyam Yadav has been stayed by this Court till submission of police report vide order dated 05.12.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.19910 of 2024 (Radheyshyam Yadav vs. State of U.P.). The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 22 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 15.10.2023. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Sri Sarfraj Ahmad, counsel for the informant submits that the signature of the informant was obtained on blank papers and thereafter the same was misused and the instant F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that he has no objection if the applicant is released on bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged belatedly. No person received any injury in the alleged incident. In the first information report and in the statement of the informant there is no allegation regarding delivery of any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security. At this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. 8. 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 cogent 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. 9. 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." 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Further, the applicant has presently remained confined more than one year and four months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 14. Let the applicant- Mohd. Muzaffar, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 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 and 15. 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 :- 5.3.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad