Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:38807 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26708 of 2024 Applicant :- Piyush Mehrotra @ Chikna @ Baba Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Santosh Nigam, learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 752 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 302, 341, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that nobody was named in the FIR but during investigation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of co- accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. He further submitted that even there is no evidence of conspiracy against the applicant. 4. He further submitted that actually apart from the present case, applicant was having criminal history of 25 other cases, therefore, during investigation, police implicated him in the present matter. He further submitted that entire criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no. 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.09.224 filed in support of the instant bail application. He further submitted that in almost all the cases applicant is on bail. He further submitted that even majority of the cases were old one. 5. He further submitted that law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed. 6. He further submitted that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 15.04.2021 i.e. for last almost four years and till date, trial of the case could not be concluded. He further submitted that till date, out of 24 witnesses of the charge sheet, only two witnesses could be examined, therefore, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. 7. He further submitted that therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be released on bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant appears to be hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of 25 other cases but could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant including the fact that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last almost four years and till date, out of 24 witnesses of the charge sheet, only two witnesses could be examined 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 10. From the record, it reflects that nobody was named in the FIR and during investigation, through the statement of co-accused, applicant has been made accused in the present matter with the aid of Section 120B IPC and it appears, even there is no cogent evidence of conspiracy against the applicant. 11. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 25 other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed in support of the instant bail application and almost all the cases appear to be old one. 12. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history of an accused, his bail application should not be dismissed. 13. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost four years and considering his long incarceration, a report was called from the court concerned, which is now on record and form its perusal, it reflects that till date, only two witnesses could be examined out of total 24 witnesses of the charge sheet, therefore, it reflects, trial of the case is moving with languid pace and there is no hope of its early disposal. Further, there is no evidence on record, which can suggests that applicant caused delay in trial. 14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 16. Let the applicant- Piyush Mehrotra @ Chikna @ Baba 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. Order Date :- 18.3.2025 KK Patel Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad