HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28186 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Adil Jamal, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.20 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 338 B.N.S. and Sections 66C and 66D of I.T. Act, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Muzaffar Nagar with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations are per se false. The allegations whatsoever are against the co-accused person Ahmad Nawaj. The criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is in jail since 14.06.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant and the same has not been properly explained. Only FIR has been appended with the supplementary affidavit. 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the other case also stands explained as the applicant is not named in the said complaint case instituted at West Bengal. The applicant has yet to apply for bail in the said case. The applicant is not named in Case Crime No.348 of 2021, under Section 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 7. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1400/2025 Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has directed that the petitioners seeking regular bail or Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adil Jamal, Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Aman .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) anticipatory bail must mandatorily disclose their criminal antecedents. Non-disclosure of criminal history itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of bail. The Court directed: "We, accordingly, direct that henceforth each individual who approaches this Court with a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) challenging orders passed by the high courts/ sessions courts declining prayers under Sections 438/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or under Sections 482/483, Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita shall mandatorily disclose in the 'SYNOPSIS' that either he is a man of clean antecedents or if he has knowledge of his involvement in any criminal case, he shall clearly indicate the same together with the stage that the proceedings, arising out of such case, have reached. Should the disclosure be found to be incorrect subsequently, that itself could be considered as a ground for dismissal of the special leave petition." 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that no order has been appended by the counsel for the applicant regarding Case Crime No.348 of 2021, under Section 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, 1908, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 9. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously as early as possible in view of the principle as has been laid down in the recent judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India; (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. 10. 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. (Krishan Pahal,J.) September 15, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 28186 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad