Allahabad High Court
PRADEEP @ CHHOTEversusSTATE OF U.P.
- Decided
- Bench
- HARVIR SINGH
Holding
The bail application is allowed because the witnesses of fact have been examined, the risk of tampering has ceased, and the accused's right to a speedy trial outweighs the seriousness of the charge.
Summary
The High Court considered the fifth bail application of Pradeep @ Chhote, who has been in jail for about four years on a charge of murder under Section 307 IPC. Earlier four bail applications had been rejected or withdrawn, and the trial court had been directed to complete the trial within one year, a deadline that was missed. The court noted that all witnesses of fact had already been examined, eliminating any risk of witness tampering, and that the prolonged pre‑trial detention violated the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial. Weighing the seriousness of the offence against the lack of any remaining threat to the trial process, the court found that bail was warranted. Consequently, the bail application was allowed subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an under‑trial accused after a four‑year incarceration and failure to complete trial within the prescribed period.
- Whether the risk of witness tampering persists after the examination of all witnesses of fact.
- Whether the gravity of an offence under Section 307 IPC justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the accused's constitutional right to a speedy trial overrides the state's interest in denying bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- under-trial
- Section 307 IPC
- right to speedy trial
- witness tampering
- criminal procedure
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9875 of 2026
Pradeep @ Chhote
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ajay Kumar Pandey, Anurag Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ghan Shyam Das, G.A.
Court No. - 70
HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is
taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey along with Ms. Ishu Bhardwaj and
Shri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the accused-applicant, learned
counsel for the informant/ complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on record.
3. This is the fifth bail application moved on behalf of the accused-
applicant/ Pradeep @ Chhote, for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 008/
2022, under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Bewar,
District Mainpuri, during pendency of trial, as his first bail application has
been decided on merits and has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 9.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.51579 of 2022; second bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn
on 25.4.2023; third bail application has been rejected vide order dated
28.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10014 of 2023 and
fourth bail application has been rejected vide order dated 27.9.2024 passed
in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13892 of 2024 by a coordinate Bench
of this Court.
4. Learned counsel for accused-applicant, while pressing this fifth bail
application, submits that, the fourth bail application of the accused- applicant
was disposed of by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
27.9.2024, with the direction to the concerned trial Court to complete the
trial within one year, however, more than one and half years have elapsed
beyond one year, but the trial could not be concluded for any reason,
whatsoever. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits
BAIL No. 9875 of 2026
2
that, prosecution has submitted the list of 11 prosecution witnesses before
the learned trial Court, however till today, only four witnesses of the
prosecution have been examined and as far as main witnesses i.e. witnesses
of fact have been completed and other formal witnesses are left to be
examined in the trial, therefore, there is bleak chances that, trial of this case
would be concluded in near future. Learned counsel for the applicant further
submits that, accused- applicant is in jail as an under-trial prisoner for about
four years, since 5.5.2022 and since, witnesses of fact have already been
examined, as of now, the occasion to extend any threat to witnesses of fact
or to pressurise them has already elapsed, therefore, the applicant is entitled
to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that,
criminal history against the applicant has been explained. He further submits
that, injured is also a hard-core criminal having criminal history of 23 cases
in different districts of State as well as, adjoining States and has pre existing
enmity with so many peoples, therefore, there is probability that, someone
else would have shot him, while he has falsely implicated the applicant and
co-accused. There is no likelihood that, the accused-applicant, after release
on bail, may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/
informant submits that, 2-3 witnesses are likely to be dropped and only
doctor and investigating officer have been left to examine in the trial and the
trial would be concluded in near future, therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to be released on bail.
6. Learned AGA for State has supported the submission made by learned
counsel for the complainant/ informant.
7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties and having perused
the record, it has come on record that, the witnesses of fact, such as the
complainant/ informant, injured, eye witnesses etc. have already been
completed and the chance of threatening and pressurizing the witnesses of
fact, has come to an end. Moreover, the accused- applicant is languishing in
jail for about four years, since 5.5.2022 and to complete the trial, it may take
some time and the fait accompli of the accused- applicant, shall depend upon
the outcome of the trial, but the fact remains that, trial could not be
completed within prescribed period, as directed by this Court vide order
dated 27.9.2024 and the liberty of the accused- applicant cannot be curtailed
and to continue for longer period in jail, as far as the freedom and liberty of
the applicant is concerned. An accused has a right to speedy trial, as
enshrined under the Constitution of India and it is well settled principle of
law that, bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but the requirements as
BAIL No. 9875 of 2026
3
to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. If the
applicant is enlarged on bail, it could only be a temporary phase, till the
conclusion of trial and will be depending upon the outcome of the trial,
thereafter the consequences would follow, such as trial may be rendered in
acquittal or conviction. However, no opinion, whatsoever can be given
regarding the trial at this stage, for the reason that, the trial would go
independently and trial court shall not be influenced by any of the
observations/ opinion rendered in order of the bail application. Thus,
keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the
accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, four years period of incarceration and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant
has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
8. Let the accused-applicant/ Pradeep @ Chhote, involved in aforesaid
case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to
following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the
investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without
seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or
commission of any crime after being released on bail.
9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.
10. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be
verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
11. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of
disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression
of this Court on the merits of the case.
April 22, 2026
Gurpreet Singh
(Harvir Singh,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GURPREET SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…