PRADEEP KUMAR JOSHI @ JOSHI KHARWARversusSTATE OF U.P.

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25684 of 2026

Pradeep Kumar Joshi @ Joshi Kharwar
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P.
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :    Satish Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :    G.A.

Court No. - 65
                      HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Rajiv Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the
applicant on bail in Case Crime No.309 of 2019, under Sections 302, 506
IPC, Police Station Tharwai, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the
trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits, however it is a case of
double murder but FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused
Rajkumar and two-three unknown persons.

5. He next submits, during investigation through the statement of co-
accused persons applicant has been made accused in the present matter.
He next submits, except the statement of co-accused and confessional
statement of applicant recorded by the I.O. as per prosecution when
applicant was arrested then from his possession one country-made pistol
was allegedly recovered.

6. He further submits, apart from the above evidence there is no other
evidence against the applicant on record. He next submits, in absence of
any other corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above evidence
prima facie it cannot be said that applicant committed the murder of
deceased alongwith others.
                                                        BAIL No. 25684 of 2026
                               2


7. He further argued, actually apart from the present case applicant is
having criminal history of 11 other cases therefore during investigation
police implicated him in the present matter. He further submits, however
majority of these cases were also of heinous nature but in all these cases
also during investigation without any cogent evidence police implicated
him and out of heinous cases in three cases applicant is on bail.

8. He further argued, co-accused Rajkumar who was even named in the
FIR has been released on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court and his
bail order has been annexed at page-65 of the paper book.

9. He further argued, in the present matter applicant is in jail since
13.11.2021 i.e. for last more than four and half years and till date not even
single prosecution witness could be examined.

10. He next submits, considering the facts of the case, including long
incarceration of applicant of more than four and half years, it is not proper
to withhold his bail application merely on the ground of his criminal
antecedents.

11. He further argued, therefore considering the facts of the case, instant
bail application may be allowed.

12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits,
prima facie applicant appears to be a hardened criminal and apart from the
present case he is having criminal history of 11 other cases out of which
six cases were of heinous nature but could not dispute the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is in jail for
last more than four and a half years and till date not even single
prosecution witness could be examined.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of
the case.

14. However, it is a case of double murder but applicant was not named in
the FIR. It reflects, during investigation when I.O. recorded the statements
of co-accused persons then they disclosed the name of applicant. Record
further suggests, apart from the statement of co-accused and confessional
                                                        BAIL No. 25684 of 2026
                               3


statement of applicant when applicant was arrested then from his
possession one country-made pistol was allegedly recovered but till date
the allegedly recovered item could not be connected with the instant
crime.

15. It reflects, apart from the above evidence there is no other evidence
against applicant on record. This Court finds merit in the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that in absence of any other
corroborative evidence merely on the basis of above evidence prima facie
it cannot be said that applicant committed murder of both the deceased.

16. Further, co-accused Rajkumar, who was even named in the FIR, has
already been released on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

17. Further, however apart from the present case applicant is having
criminal history of 11 other cases including six cases of heinous nature
but it reflects, in all these cases also applicant has been made accused in
the same manner like the present one and in three cases he is on bail.

18. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since November,
2021 i.e. for last more than four and half years and from the report of the
court concerned dated 27.08.2026 it reflects, till date not even single
prosecution witness could be examined and therefore it reflects, trial of
the cases is moving with languid pace and there is no likelihood of its
early disposal. From the report of the court concerned it could not be
reflected that applicant is responsible for the delay in trial in any manner.

19. Right of speedy trial is the fundamental right of an accused and on its
violation even in serious cases he can be released on bail and considering
long incarceration of applicant of more than four and half years it cannot
be said that the fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant has not
been infringed.

20. The Apex Court in the case of Sahil Manoj Machare Vs. The State
of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810, while dealing with bail
matter of an accused relating to offence under Section 302 IPC observed
in paragraph-6 as under:-
                                                       BAIL No. 25684 of 2026
                               4


"6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the
offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever
serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then
Court must consider the plea for bail appropriately."

21. Further, even considering the merit of the case and long incarceration
of applicant of more than four and half years, in view of this Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents of applicant it is not proper to
withhold his bail application.

22. 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......."

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

24. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the instant bail application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant - Pradeep Kumar Joshi @ Joshi Kharwar 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.
                                                                                             BAIL No. 25684 of 2026
                                                                    5


                                    (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.

                                    26. 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.

                                    27. 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.



                                                                                                (Sameer Jain,J.)
                                    September 28, 2026
                                    Shahroz




Digitally signed by :-
SHAHROJ ALAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad