HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25684 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Satish Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Pradeep Kumar Joshi @ Joshi Kharwar .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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 3 "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 4 (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. September 28, 2026 Shahroz BAIL No. 25684 of 2026 5 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad