Allahabad High Court
GULAMversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- KRISHAN PAHAL
Holding
The Court granted bail to the applicant on the ground of parity after he satisfactorily explained his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Gulam applied for bail in a 2024 case under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. after a prior bail application was rejected for failure to explain his criminal antecedents. The State highlighted two earlier cases (Crime No. 591 of 2014 and Crime No. 307 of 2016) involving serious IPC offences and six other pending cases, arguing that he was not entitled to bail. The applicant contended he had no knowledge of the two cases and that his externment under the U.P. Goondas Act and Arms Act had expired. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s directive in Munnesh v. State of Uttar Pradesh that bail seekers must disclose all criminal history, and initially found the application deficient and rejected it. However, after further argument noting that the applicant had now explained his antecedents and that a co‑accused, Mulla Afroz, had been granted bail on similar grounds, the Court held that parity warranted granting bail, subject to a personal bond, sureties and standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite his undisclosed criminal antecedents.
- Whether the applicant’s explanation of his criminal history and parity with a co‑accused who was granted bail justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482, 483
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 439
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 411, 414, 420, 504, 506
- U.P. Goondas Act
Subjects
- bail
- criminal antecedents
- non‑disclosure
- parity
- IPC offences
- Supreme Court precedent
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10280 of 2026
Gulam
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Aditya Nandan, Chandan Srivastava,
Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 65
(Sr. No.70 out of 243)
HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vikas Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil
Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on
record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections
103(1), 61(2)क BNS, Police Station Sambhal, District Sambhal, during the
pendency of trial.
4. This is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one
was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 in Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.36853 of 2025, and the following order was passed:-
"1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for applicant and Sri
Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case
Crime No.340 of 2024, under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)? B.N.S., Police
Station Sambhal, District Sambhal with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. has stated that the counsel for the applicant has not
explained the criminal history of two cases assigned to the applicant i.e.
BAIL No. 10280 of 2026
2
Case Crime No.591 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336, 504
and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sambhal and Case Crime
No.307 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 411, 414, 420 I.P.C.,
Police Station Nakhasa, District Sambhal. In addition to it, there are
criminal history of six more cases assigned to the applicant, as such, he is
not entitled for bail.
5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the
applicant has no knowledge of the said two cases. In the cases of U.P.
Goondas Act and Arms Act, the period of externment has already expired.
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 assigned to the applicant
has not been properly explained by the counsel for the applicant, I do not
find it a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
8. The instant bail application is found devoid of merits and is,
accordingly, rejected.
BAIL No. 10280 of 2026
3
9. 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.
10. 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. "
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the first bail application
of the applicant was rejected on account of non-explanation of criminal
antecedent of the applicant. Now, the criminal antecedent of the applicant
has been explained, as in one case the bail application is pending and in
another case the applicant has been enlarged on bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions
made by learned counsels for the parties, and taking into consideration that
similarly placed co-accused, Mulla Afroz, has already been granted bail by
this Court vide order dated 9.9.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.22977 of 2025, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a
case for bail. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.
7. Let the applicant- Gulam, be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to
verification of sureties, with the conditions that he shall not tamper with
evidence or intimidate witnesses and shall appear before the trial court as
required.
8. Breach of any condition shall entail cancellation of bail. The observations
herein shall not affect the trial on merits.
(Krishan Pahal,J.)
May 12, 2026
Vikas Verma
Digitally signed by :-
VIKAS VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…