JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Arun Sinha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahesh Kumar and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.30 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34, 120-B, 201, 427 I.P.C., Section 3/25 Arms Act and Section 5/27 Arms Act, P.S. Musafirkhana, District Amethi. 3. It is alleged in the first information report that on 27.2.2023 in the evening at around 7.00 p.m., uncle of the informant Suresh Yadav and brother Brijesh Yadav were coming home from Bolero car. On the way at Dadra Road, before Amar Bahadur Singh Degree college, two without numbered motorcycle stopped the Bolero car and started making indiscriminate firing and also hurled crude bombs, due to which, uncle and brother of the informant died. It is further alleged that the accused persons are inimical due to 2015 punchayat election. In 2016 also, the uncle Suresh Yadav had received gun shot injuries, in which Jalaluddin and others were named. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that informant is not an eye witness. Incident has been narrated by Shubham Verma. The named accused persons Vaseer Khan and Jalaluddin have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.01.2024 & 18.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.13143 of 2023 & 15248 of 2023. He submits that apart from the above named two co-accused persons, co-accused Manoj Yadav and Manish Yadav alias Kallu who were not named in the F.I.R. have also been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 08.01.2024 & 06.12.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.10378 of 2023 & 12350 of 2023. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that there is absolutely no material against the applicant except the information given by a secret informer on parcha No.1 of the case diary that in the influence of the applicant Rahul Yadav commits the criminal activity. He submits that his case is on better footing than the named accused persons namely, Jalaluddin and Vaseer Khan. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2023. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. He submits that his case is on better footing than the named accused persons namely, Jalaluddin and Vaseer Khan. The applicant is in jail since 04.03.2023. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer. They have submitted that applicant has criminal history of 17 cases and, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Rebutting the aforesaid, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has explained the criminal history in para 47 of the bail application. He is on bail in all the 17 cases. He submits that merely because applicant has a criminal history will not dis-entitle him to be enlarged on bail. He has relied on judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012]. He submits that role of the accused in the particular case has to be seen while granting bail, emphasis is on para 6. He has further relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIRONLINE 2020 SC 96]. 7. On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the bail orders of the co-accused persons named above who have been enlarged on bail, period of incarceration gone into by the applicant and the explanation of the criminal history so also the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi & Prabhakar Tewari (supra), prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that case of the applicant is on better footing than the named co-accused persons Jalaluddin and Vaseer Khan, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 9. Let the applicant Sanjay Yadav Pradhan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.