HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28623 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Shamshad Ahmad, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 4. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.200 of 2020, under Sections 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1985 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, Police Station Karchana, District Allahabad (Prayagraj) with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has nothing to do with the said motorcycle recovered from the place of occurrence. The said motorcycle no. UP 70CQ 4575 originally belongs to one Sajan Mohammad and it was sold by him to co-accused person who in turn sold it to the applicant on affidavit only. There is no transfer certificate of the said motorcycle at the R.T.O. office to any of the accused persons. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the allegations are per se false. The applicant is not named in the FIR. He has simply been made an accused on the basis of the recovery of said motorcycle, which is farce. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shamshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mohammad Taslim .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) applicant is in jail since 13.05.2025 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained i.e. Case Crime No.403 of 2022, under Section 4/5 Explosive Substances Act, Police Station Karchana, District Prayagraj, Case Crime No.15 of 2006, under Sections 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Kaundhiyara, District Prayagraj, Case Crime No.172 of 2016, under Section 60 Excise Act, Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad and Case Crime No.204 of 2007, under Sections 147, 323, 379, 427, 436, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Ghoorpur, District Allahabad. 8. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been enlarged on bail in these cases also, but he could not fetch the orders. 9. 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 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." 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the role of the applicant and the fact that the criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained by the counsel for the applicant, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. BAIL No. 28623 of 2025 2 11. The bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. 12. 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. 13. 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. September 11, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 28623 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad