HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31946 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2025, under Section 8/20/29 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Police Station- Kotwali Mandi, District Saharanpur, during the pendency of trial. 4. As per the allegations in the FIR, 210 grams of Charas is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant by the police on 12.08.2025 at about 11:35 a.m. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 12.08.2025. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has not been explained i.e. Case Crime No.47 of 2020, under Section 4/25 Arms Act, PS- Mandi, District Saharanpur and Case Crime No.797 of 2019, under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C., PS- Mandi, District Saharanpur. The applicant was earlier on also implicated in a case under N.D.P.S. Act, as Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Samir .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) such, he is not entitled for bail as there is likelihood of applicant repeating the said offence. 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 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 the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant has not been explained by the counsel for the applicant, 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 24, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 31946 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad