HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33159 of 2025 Court No. - 67 HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Basdeo Nishad, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, 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.102 of 2025, under Sections 109, 3(5), 317(5) B.N.S. and 3/25/28 Arms Act, Police Station- Mansoorpur, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with co-accused person Jogendra Alias Teena who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23986 of 2025. The criminal history assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.04.2025. 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 the criminal history of four cases assigned to the applicant has not been explained by the counsel for the applicant i.e. Case Crime No.362 of 2022, under Sections 398, 401 and 34 I.P.C., PS- Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar, Case Crime No.306 of 2012, under Sections 382, 411 and 427 I.P.C., PS- Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagarand, Case Crime No.324 of 2012, under Section 25 of Arms Act, PS- Mansoorpur, District Muzaffarnagar and Case Crime No.622 of 2006, under Section 4/25 Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Basdeo Nishad, Rama Pati Nishad Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naushad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) Arms Act, PS- Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar. 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 the fact that the criminal history of four 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. 8. 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. 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. September 25, 2025 (Ravi Kant) BAIL No. 33159 of 2025 2 (Krishan Pahal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad