Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36562 Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1790 of 2025 Applicant :- Danish Alias Danny Opposite Party :- State Of Uttar Pradesh Through Home Secretary, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Adarsh Srivastava,Reena Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K. Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 344 of 2024, under Sections 457, 380 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bulandshahr during the pendency of the trial. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Aslam in the police custody. The said statement insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in Paragraph-15 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents. 5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Aslam in the police custody. At this stage there is no substantive evidence to link the applicant with the offence. 6. Insofar as the criminal antecedents of the applicant are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any cogent material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court, if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, when no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused. Hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 7. In Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para- 30 has observed as under: "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter, we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognized by the Apex Court more specifically on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51. 10. It is settled principle of law that the objection of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. Learned A.G.A. for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/ applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interest of the public or State. 11. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 12. Let the applicant- Danish alias Danny, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he: (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court; (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and, (iv) shall appear on the first Sunday of every month at the police station concerned. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 SKT/- Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad