HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31846 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ajay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Ashish Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Durgvijay Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.299 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109, 61(2) B.N.S., Police Station Pilakhuwa, District Hapur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused person Rahul who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 12.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25171 of 2025. As such, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 29.7.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that as far as criminal history of applicant is concerned, out of twenty cases assigned to him, he has explained nineteen of those cases but could not file the order of one case i.e. Case Crime No.904 of 2017, U/s 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Singh Yadav, Shubham Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashish Tyagi, G.A. Nikhil Yadav .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Pilkhuwa, District Hapur. In the supplementary affidavit filed in Court today, the sub-clause (U) of the paragraph-3, it stands mentioned that after inquiring it was found by the Sessions Court Counsel that the said case is not related to the applicant. As such, the criminal history of the applicant stands explained. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General has not disputed the factum of parity with the said co-accused person, but has stated that criminal history assigned to the applicant has not been properly explained. Learned counsel for the applicant has not filed any order or questionnaire mentioning that applicant is not wanted in the said case. As such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 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 criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained, 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 BAIL No. 31846 of 2025 2 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. 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. September 24, 2025 Vikas Verma BAIL No. 31846 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad