Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:145289 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43671 of 2023 Applicant :- Deepak Kannaujia Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Pradeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.612 of 2022, under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per prosecution story, the FIR was instituted by the informant stating that on 28.12.2022 at about 12:30 p.m., two unknown persons on a scooty had caused grievous injuries to his brother, who succumbed to the said injuries afterwards. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the FIR is delayed by more than one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. The applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up later on in his own confessional statement and that of the co-accused person. There is recovery of a lathi at the pointing out of the applicant, but the said recovery has been foisted on him. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is true that the applicant has criminal history of twenty seven cases. The police has implicated the applicant just to show good work. There is no evidence to connect the applicant with it. The only evidence against the applicant is the statements of wife and daughter of the informant who have stated that one day before the incident, the applicant alongwith Rajkumar Agrawal @ Raju had come to their house and threatened the deceased person. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the said evidence is vague. The applicant is an indigent person, as such, he could not fetch the orders of the said cases stated to have been shown against him in the criminal history. The applicant is languishing in jail since 08.01.2023 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. This Court had directed the District Legal Services Authority to provide the details of the criminal cases against the applicant to enable him to explain the said criminal history vide order dated 29.1.2024, but the District Legal Services Authority has not filed any report whatsoever till date. Even the learned A.G.A. was directed to ascertain whether the applicant is on bail in all the cases pending against him, but he is also unable to furnish the said details regarding criminal history of the applicant. 10. This Court had called for the status of trial from the concerned Trial Court. As per the said status report dated 19.08.2025, six witnesses have been examined and many more witnesses are to be examined. 11. 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 material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. 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 of criminal antecedent. 12. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the the fact that learned A.G.A. and the District Legal Services Authority could not furnish the details of the criminal history of the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 14. Let the applicant- Deepak Kannaujia, who is involved in aforementioned case crime 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence during trial. (ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 16. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 22.8.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad