Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24472 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23070 of 2024 Applicant :- Arvind Rajak Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vineet Tiwari,Vineet Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record. 2. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 24 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi, during the pendency of trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The applicant was arrested on 25.02.2024 in Case Crime No. 85 of 2024, under Sections 186, 307 I.P.C. and 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a country made pistol, a live cartridge, ornaments of yellow and white metals, Rs.40,000/- and a pass-book has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The ornaments alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant, cannot be connected with the offence. At this stage, there is no credible evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.10 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 25.02.2024 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage, there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. 6. 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. 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 12. Let the applicant- Arvind Rajak, 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 (v) shall appear on first Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned. 13. 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 :- 19.2.2025 Manish Kr Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MANISH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad