HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33235 of 2026 Court No. - 65 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Rajkapoor Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shatruhan Yadav, learned AGA for the State. 3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 152 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 315, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant is named in the FIR along with five others but it reflects that informant of the case was not the eye witness and he lodged FIR of the present case on the basis of suspicion. 5. He further submits that however, during investigation Investigating Officer recorded the statement of one Sanjeev Yadav, who claimed himself to be eye witness but from his statement it could not be reflected that applicant in any manner involved in commission of the present crime. He next submits that according to this witness, co-accused Nikki was the principal accused, who by causing firearm injuries committed the murder. He next submits that even post mortem report suggests that deceased died due to firearm injuries. 6. He further submits, even after considering the entire facts of the case in detail co-accused Mulayam Gond, who was also named in the FIR has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anupam Kumar Shukla, Rajkapoor Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pancham Gond @ Abhishek Gond .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page-99 of the supplementary affidavit dated 16.09.2026 filed in support of instant bail application and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him. 7. He further submits, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 29 other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. He further submits, all the cases were of theft and it reflects, local police is highly inimical with the applicant and used to implicate him during investigation in the cases of theft. 8. He further submits, considering the facts of the case and nature of criminal history of the applicant, it is not proper to withhold the bail application of the applicant merely on the basis of criminal history. 9. He further submits, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.06.2026. 10. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits, applicant appears to be hardened criminal and apart from the present case he is having criminal history of 29 other cases but could not dispute the fact that all the previous cases were of theft. He also could not dispute the other argument on facts advanced by learned counsel for applicant. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. However, applicant is named in the FIR but from the record it reflects, co-accused Nikki was the prime accused, who by causing firearm injury committed the murder of the deceased. 13. Further, co-accused Mulayam Gond who was also named in the FIR has been released on bail by this Court and on facts, case of applicant is at par with him. 14. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 29 cases but all the cases were of theft and it reflects, in all the cases applicant has been made accused by the police during investigation. Considering the criminal history of the applicant coupled with the facts of the case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withhold the instant bail application merely on the basis of criminal history of the applicant. BAIL No. 33235 of 2026 2 15. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily merely on the basis of criminal history bail application of an accused should not be dismissed. 16. The Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in paragraph-10 also observed as follows:- "10. The presence of the antecedents of the accused is only one of the several considerations for deciding the prayer for bail made by him. In a given case, if the accused makes out a strong prima facie case, depending upon the fact situation and period of incarceration, the presence of antecedents may not be a ground to deny bail. There may be a case where a Court can grant bail only on the grounds of long incarceration. The presence of antecedents may not be relevant in such a case. In a given case, the Court may grant default bail. Again, the antecedents of the accused are irrelevant in such a case. Thus, depending upon the peculiar facts, the Court can grant bail notwithstanding the existence of the antecedents......." 17. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 27.06.2026. 18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 19. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant - Pancham Gond @ Abhishek Gond be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 21. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. BAIL No. 33235 of 2026 3 22. 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 18, 2026 AK Pandey BAIL No. 33235 of 2026 4 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad