HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28305 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.237 of 2025, under Sections 2/3 of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad, during the pendency of trial. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution under the Gangsters Act have been launched against the applicant on the basis of three criminal cases shown in the gang chart in which he has already been enlarged on bail by the court concerned. The details of criminal cases have been mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. He has been falsely implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not the member of any gang. Learned counsel has further stated that there is a criminal history of eleven cases against the applicant, which has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 6.5.2025. 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 criminal history of one case i.e. FIR/Case Crime No.281 of 2020, U/s 188, 269, 270 I.P.C., Police Station- Sirsaganj, District- Firozabad has not been properly explained. No order has been appended regarding the said case. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Baburam .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 6. 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." 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the parameters of Section 19(4) of Gangsters Act are not fulfilled, 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. 8. However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously 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. 9. 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 16, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 28305 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad