HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31903 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Narayan Singh (Kushwaha), learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned State Law Officer 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.372 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/29 of NDPS Act, Police Station Shahganj, District Agra with the prayer to enlarge him on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused person Shashiranjan Chaubey Alias Bablu who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13642 of 2025. As such, the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 19.3.2025 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 the criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant has explained in paragraph- 26 of the affidavit filed with the bail application as well as in paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 31.8.2025, which is on record. So far as the Case Crime No.254 of 2024, U/s 8/20/29 NDPS Act, P.S. Ghiror, District Mainpuri is concerned, the applicant has applied for bail in the said case and the bail application is still pending. As such, the criminal Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Neeraj Alias Neeru .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) history of the applicant stands explained. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. 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. The sub-clause (ii) of the paragraph-2 of the said supplementary affidavit dated 31.8.2025 indicates that the applicant is wanted in Case Crime No.689 of 2029, U/s 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandra, District Agra and it is stated that the case is pending before the trial court, but it is nowhere mentioned that he is on bail or no order of bail has been filed with the affidavit regarding Case Crime No.689 of 2019. 7. Learned A.G.A. has further argued that the applicant is implicated in two other cases of NDPS Act, as such, he is a repeated offender and is not entitled for bail. 8. 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.” 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that criminal history of the applicant has not been properly explained and no order has been appended regarding Case Crime No.689 of 2029, U/s 323, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sikandra, District BAIL No. 31903 of 2025 2 Agra, 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 31903 of 2025 3 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad