HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10143 of 2026 Court No. - 64 HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2026, under Sections 309(4), 317(2) B.N.S., and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Nawabganj, District- Kanpur Nagar during pendency of the trial. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 7.1.2026, whereas the first information report was lodged on 8.1.2026. The delay is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of an information furnished by an informer, the applicant was arrested on 9.1.2026 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. False recovery of a country made pistol, Indian currency of Rs.1500/- and two mobile phones has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The said Indian currency and mobile phone do not link the applicant with the alleged offence. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 10.1.2026. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty. 4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Prashant Mishra @ Mangal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 5. After hearing the rival contentions, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. No test identification parade was got conducted by the police authorities. At this stage, there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant with the offence. 6. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is 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 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, 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 Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "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 Vs. 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. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 10. Let the applicant- Prashant Mishra @ Mangal, 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; BAIL No. 10143 of 2026 2 (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iv) shall appear on 1st Sunday of every month at the Police Station concerned. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. . May 6, 2026 S.S. BAIL No. 10143 of 2026 3 (Vivek Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad