DEEPAK @ ROHITversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

     CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32323 of 2026

Deepak @ Rohit
                                                               .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P.
                                                                   .....Opposite
                                                                         Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)          : Mohit Kumar Singh, Sujata Choudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)     : G.A.

Court No. - 64
                      HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.K. Sharma, learned
A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. Perused the record.

2. The present bail application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.151 of 2026, under Sections 352, 351(3),
318(4), 319(2), 61(2)क, 111(4) B.N.S., Police Station - Sardhana, District
Meerut, during the pendency of the trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report has been
lodged belatedly after a delay of more than five months. Inordinate delay in
lodging the first information report is fatal to the prosecution case. No
amount relating to the alleged transaction has been received by the applicant.
The applicant is not a beneficiary of the illicit transactions. The applicant is
also not a signatory of the agreement executed between co-accused
Jagmohan and the informant. The applicant has no role in the alleged
incident. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the applicant
with the offence. It is next contended that the applicant is neither a member
of any organized crime syndicate nor he acted on behalf of such syndicate.
Further, the co-accused Gulhasan has been granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 3.9.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.28643 of
2026. Applicant claims parity. Criminal history of the applicant has been
explained in Paragraph- 21 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since
10.7.2026 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the
                                                            BAIL No. 32323 of 2026
                                  2


applicant has criminal antecedents.

5. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this
Court prima facie finds that the first information report has been lodged with
inordinate delay. At this stage there is no corroborative evidence to link the
applicant with the offence. The co-accused Gulhasan has been granted bail
by this Court.

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 two months
and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, 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- Deepak @ Rohit, 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:
                                                                                             BAIL No. 32323 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    (i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;
                                    (ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
                                    (iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
                                    (iv) shall mark his presence at the concerned police station on first Sunday
                                    of every month between 11.00 am and 01.00 pm.

                                    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.


                                    September 11, 2026
                                    Manish Kr
                                                                                               (Vivek Varma,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MANISH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad