Pradeep @ Chhote Vs State of U.P.

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.

¶12

This is the fifth bail application moved on behalf of the accusedapplicant/ 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 Bail Application No.51579 of 2022; second bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 25.4.2023; third bail application has been rejected vide order dated 28.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.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.

¶13

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

¶14

BAIL No. 9875 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Learned AGA for State has supported the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant/ informant.

¶19

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

¶20

BAIL No. 9875 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

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 .

¶23

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:-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶28

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶29

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.

¶30

April 22, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶31

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pradeep @ Chhote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep @ Chhote v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virji @ Vijander vs State of U.P.

Munnalal vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Parvez vs State of U.P.

Raja Garg Alias Pankaj Garg Vs State of U.P.

Madhav Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Bhola and Another Vs State of U.P.