State of U.P v. Party

1. Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 447 IPC, Police Station Malawan, District Etah, during pendency of the trial. Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant:-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has made accused in the present matter along with four others.

4. He further submits that as per the FIR, on 25th January, 2023 at about 12:00 P.M. in the afternoon applicant along with others tried to commit murder of the informant but admittedly informant did not sustain any injury.

5. He further submits that although incident is said to have taken place on 25th January, 2023 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 28th June, 2023 i.e. after five months and therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging 2 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024 the FIR of the present case.

6. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have also been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court. He next submits, merely on the basis of such criminal antecedents, bail application should not be withheld specially considering the fact that prima- facie allegations levelled in the given case appear to be false.

7. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State:-

8. Per contra; learned A.A.G. submits that as applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, therefore, due to his fear FIR could not be lodged at the earliest.

9. He further submits that applicant is hardened criminal who is having criminal history of 100 cases to his credit and he is history-sheeter. He further submits, from the criminal history of applicant, it reflects, he indulged in anti social activities since 1980. He further submits, at the time of deciding bail application, criminal history of an accused is very relevant and ordinarily a man who is having such huge criminal history of 100 cases should not be released on bail.

10. He further submits, therefore, considering the fact that it is a case of attempt to murder and applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, he does not deserve bail. Analysis:-

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. As per allegations, however, applicant and others tried to commit murder of the informant but admittedly no one could sustain any injury, therefore, it appears to be a case of no injury.

13. Further, there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR of the present 3 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024 case.

14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. It appears, in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings pending against the applicant have been stayed by this Court and in remaining majority of cases, applicant is on bail.

15. Further, however, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned A.A.G. that at the time of hearing of bail application, criminal history of an accused is relevant but law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application should not be withheld merely on the basis of criminal antecedents.

16. The Apex Court in case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para 10 observed as under:- "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, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years.

18. Therefore, considering the observation made by Supreme Court in case of Ayub Khan (supra) and period of incarceration of applicant in the present case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application merely on the ground that applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 4 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024

21. Let the applicant- Rameshwar Singh Yadav, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.104 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 447 IPC, Police Station Malawan, District Etah, during pendency of the trial. Arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant:-

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has made accused in the present matter along with four others.

4. He further submits that as per the FIR, on 25th January, 2023 at about 12:00 P.M. in the afternoon applicant along with others tried to commit murder of the informant but admittedly informant did not sustain any injury.

5. He further submits that although incident is said to have taken place on 25th January, 2023 but FIR of the present case was lodged on 28th June, 2023 i.e. after five months and therefore, there is inordinate delay in lodging 2 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024 the FIR of the present case.

6. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have also been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings have been stayed by this Court. He next submits, merely on the basis of such criminal antecedents, bail application should not be withheld specially considering the fact that prima- facie allegations levelled in the given case appear to be false.

7. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State:-

8. Per contra; learned A.A.G. submits that as applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, therefore, due to his fear FIR could not be lodged at the earliest.

9. He further submits that applicant is hardened criminal who is having criminal history of 100 cases to his credit and he is history-sheeter. He further submits, from the criminal history of applicant, it reflects, he indulged in anti social activities since 1980. He further submits, at the time of deciding bail application, criminal history of an accused is very relevant and ordinarily a man who is having such huge criminal history of 100 cases should not be released on bail.

10. He further submits, therefore, considering the fact that it is a case of attempt to murder and applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases, he does not deserve bail. Analysis:-

11. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. As per allegations, however, applicant and others tried to commit murder of the informant but admittedly no one could sustain any injury, therefore, it appears to be a case of no injury.

13. Further, there is delay of five months in lodging the FIR of the present 3 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024 case.

14. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application. It appears, in 20 cases, he has been acquitted, in 25 cases final reports have been submitted, which have been accepted by the court, six cases have become infructuous by efflux of time, 14 cases have been withdrawn with the leave of the Court, in three cases applicant has been exonerated, five cases have been wrongly shown against him and in three cases proceedings pending against the applicant have been stayed by this Court and in remaining majority of cases, applicant is on bail.

15. Further, however, this Court finds merit in the arguments advanced by learned A.A.G. that at the time of hearing of bail application, criminal history of an accused is relevant but law is settled, if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application should not be withheld merely on the basis of criminal antecedents.

16. The Apex Court in case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 in para 10 observed as under:- "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, applicant is in jail in the present matter for last more than one and half years.

18. Therefore, considering the observation made by Supreme Court in case of Ayub Khan (supra) and period of incarceration of applicant in the present case, in view of this Court, it is not proper to withheld the bail application merely on the ground that applicant is having criminal history of 100 cases.

19. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

20. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 4 BAIL No. 29821 of 2024

21. Let the applicant- Rameshwar Singh Yadav, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 Zafar (Sameer Jain,J.) MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad