Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134803 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27442 of 2025 Applicant :- Jaun @ Yogesh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditi Srivastava,Kandarp Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 172 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 103(2), 109, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5), 117(2) of BNS, Police Station - Gajraula, District - Amroha, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Manoj, has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 22225 of 2025. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that all the criminal history of the applicant stands explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today in court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 01.07.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. 6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there is a criminal history of six cases of the applicant but he has not explained one of those cases i.e. Case Crime No. 607 of 2024, u/s 115(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District- Amroha, as such, he is not entitled for bail. 7. The Supreme Court in Munnesh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No. 1400 of 2025 has laid down that wrong averment regarding criminal antecedents of the accused could itself be a ground for rejection of bail. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Munnesh (supra) and also considering the fact that the criminal history of the applicant, I do not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 9. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected. 10. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements 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. 11. 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:- 8.8.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad