# Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 648
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 9417 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akhlakh-ahmad-ekhlakh-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54896
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

G.A., Praveen Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to rejection of bail in a criminal
appeal arising out of a brutal and premeditated
triple murder, involving allegations of criminal
conspiracy, common intention, shelter and
financial assistance to assailants, and the
evidentiary value of statements under Ss. 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. and electronic evidence at the stage
of bail.

Headnotes
Bail - Heinous offence - Triple murder in
broad daylight - Public terror - Gravity and
societal impact - Bail rightly refused -
Criminal conspiracy - S. 120-B IPC - Role
of non-shooter - Financial assistance and
shelter - Common intention under S. 34
IPC - Evidence at bail stage - Statements
under S. 161 Cr.P.C. - Not substantive but
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
649
relevant for prima facie assessment -
Statements
under
S.
164
Cr.P.C.
-
Corroborative value - Greater evidentiary
weight at bail stage - Electronic evidence -
Recovery of DVR and mobile phone - S.
65-B certificate - Prima facie relevance -
Influence of accused - Likelihood of
witness intimidation - Administration of
justice - Bail declined - "Bail is the rule,
jail is the exception"" - Not absolute -
Exception in cases of heinous crimes.

Held:
The
accused
is
charged
with
"collaborating with co-accused to commit the
murders of the complainant's husband and
two police guards (a total of 3 persons) by
openly attacking them on the road in broad
daylight with weapons and bombs, spreading
terror
among
the
general
public"
-
Statements of co-accused Rakesh @ Nakesh
@ Lala, Kaish and Shahrukh specifically
implicate
the
appellant
in
providing
financial assistance and shelter to coaccused Guddu Muslim after the incident -
Statements
of
independent
witnesses
recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C. corroborate
the pre-meditated conspiracy to eliminate
Umesh Pal - Recovery of DVR and green
Apple
mobile
phone
from
appellant's
residence, containing footage of a coaccused after the crime, constitutes prima
facie material and cannot be brushed
aside at the bail stage - At the stage of
bail, "a detailed evaluation of the merits
and elaborate documentation of pros and
cons of the evidence are not required" -
The
gravity
of
offence,
punishment
prescribed,
likelihood
of
influencing
witnesses, and societal impact outweigh
the claim of personal liberty - Principles
laid down in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy do
not apply in isolation, as the present case
is supported by S. 164 statements and
electronic evidence, and involves heinous
murders, not economic offences - criminal
appeal challenging rejection of bail lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed -
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was
rejected. (Paras - 9, 22-27, 30-38, 41-43,
47, 48) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271; P.
Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157;
Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422; Indresh Kumar v.
State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42; State of U.P. v.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Vinod
Bhandari v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 502;
Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 10 SCC
508; Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8
SCC 407; Balvir Singh v. State of M.P., (2019)
15 SCC 599; Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of
Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545; Anvar P.V. v. P.K.
Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar
v.
Kailash
Kushanrao
Gorantyal,
(2020) 7 SCC 1; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Puran v.
Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
Explosive
Substances
Act;
Criminal
Law
Amendment
Act;
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,1989.
List of Keywords
Bail; Criminal conspiracy;

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 48,534. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view that the injuries though were very old
but were never attended to in between the
date when they occurred and when the
injury report was being prepared. Also, we
find that the injury report were never
entered into any medico legal register. No
explanation has been given with regard to
the fact as to why the delay had occurred.
What happened in the cases of the injured
Ved Mani Tiwari and Rakesh Tiwari who
were getting their injuries examined after
almost 13 hours and in the case of Kamlesh
Nath Tiwari who was getting his injury
examined after a period of three days was
not clear. Whether the injury was self
inflicted in order to make out a case in their
favour also was not clear. The delay in
getting the injuries examined after such a
long period definitely puts a question mark
on the side of the prosecution in S.T. No.
1612 of 2011. Howsoever much the x-ray
report etc. had been there but when they
were not produced at the right moment and
at the right place then it cannot be said that
the prosecution in this case would get any
benefit out of them.

49. Under such circumstances, we are
of the view that the case of the prosecution
in S.T. No. 1612 of 2011 is not proved. We
are also of the view that if from the perusal
of the evidence two views are possible and
both views could be taken as correct then it
is definitely our view that the judgement of
the trial court should not be interfered with.
We are supported by the judgement in
Johar and Ors. vs. Mangal Prasad and
Anr. reported in AIR 2008 SC 1165.

50. The Criminal Appeal U/S 372
Cr.P.C. No. 952 of 2022 is, thus, devoid of
merit and is dismissed. The Government
Appeal No. 388 of 2022 is also, thus, found
to be devoid of merit and no leave to appeal
is being granted.

51. In the end result, the Criminal No.
2516 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No.
2518 of 2022 are allowed and the Criminal
Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. No. 952 of 2022 is
dismissed. No leave to appeal in the
Government Appeal No. 388 of 2022 is
being granted.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 648
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 9417 of 2023

Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad
 ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Bhavya Sahai, Sr.
Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Praveen Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Kumar
Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to rejection of bail in a criminal
appeal arising out of a brutal and premeditated
triple murder, involving allegations of criminal
conspiracy, common intention, shelter and
financial assistance to assailants, and the
evidentiary value of statements under Ss. 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. and electronic evidence at the stage
of bail.

Headnotes
Bail - Heinous offence - Triple murder in
broad daylight - Public terror - Gravity and
societal impact - Bail rightly refused -
Criminal conspiracy - S. 120-B IPC - Role
of non-shooter - Financial assistance and
shelter - Common intention under S. 34
IPC - Evidence at bail stage - Statements
under S. 161 Cr.P.C. - Not substantive but
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
649
relevant for prima facie assessment -
Statements
under
S.
164
Cr.P.C.
-
Corroborative value - Greater evidentiary
weight at bail stage - Electronic evidence -
Recovery of DVR and mobile phone - S.
65-B certificate - Prima facie relevance -
Influence of accused - Likelihood of
witness intimidation - Administration of
justice - Bail declined - "Bail is the rule,
jail is the exception"" - Not absolute -
Exception in cases of heinous crimes.

Held:
The
accused
is
charged
with
"collaborating with co-accused to commit the
murders of the complainant's husband and
two police guards (a total of 3 persons) by
openly attacking them on the road in broad
daylight with weapons and bombs, spreading
terror
among
the
general
public"
-
Statements of co-accused Rakesh @ Nakesh
@ Lala, Kaish and Shahrukh specifically
implicate
the
appellant
in
providing
financial assistance and shelter to coaccused Guddu Muslim after the incident -
Statements
of
independent
witnesses
recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C. corroborate
the pre-meditated conspiracy to eliminate
Umesh Pal - Recovery of DVR and green
Apple
mobile
phone
from
appellant's
residence, containing footage of a coaccused after the crime, constitutes prima
facie material and cannot be brushed
aside at the bail stage - At the stage of
bail, "a detailed evaluation of the merits
and elaborate documentation of pros and
cons of the evidence are not required" -
The
gravity
of
offence,
punishment
prescribed,
likelihood
of
influencing
witnesses, and societal impact outweigh
the claim of personal liberty - Principles
laid down in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy do
not apply in isolation, as the present case
is supported by S. 164 statements and
electronic evidence, and involves heinous
murders, not economic offences - criminal
appeal challenging rejection of bail lacks
merit and is liable to be dismissed -
Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was
rejected. (Paras - 9, 22-27, 30-38, 41-43,
47, 48) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271; P.
Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157;
Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee,
(2010) 14 SCC 496; Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422; Indresh Kumar v.
State of U.P., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 610; Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42; State of U.P. v.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21; Vinod
Bhandari v. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 502;
Krishnan v. State of Kerala, (1996) 10 SCC
508; Virendra Singh v. State of M.P., (2010) 8
SCC 407; Balvir Singh v. State of M.P., (2019)
15 SCC 599; Jasdeep Singh @ Jassu v. State of
Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545; Anvar P.V. v. P.K.
Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar
v.
Kailash
Kushanrao
Gorantyal,
(2020) 7 SCC 1; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Puran v.
Rambilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872;
Explosive
Substances
Act;
Criminal
Law
Amendment
Act;
Scheduled
Castes
and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,1989.
List of Keywords
Bail; Criminal conspiracy; Financial assistance;
Common intention; Heinous offence; Triple
murder; Broad daylight; Public terror; DVR
recovery;
Co-accused
statements;
DVR
recovery; S. 65-B; Prima facie case; Witness
intimidation.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
Criminal Appeal against the order dated
23.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge,
SC/ST Act, Prayagraj, rejecting bail in Bail
Application No. 4196 of 2023, arising out of
Case
Crime
No.
114/2023,
P.S.
Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Avnish Kumar Srivastava, Bhavya Sahai, Sr.
Advocate
Advs. for the Respondents:
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
G.A., Praveen Kumar Pandey, Sandeep Kumar
Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. Heard Mr Brijesh Sahai, learned
Senior counsel assisted by Mr Bhavya
Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, Mr Manish Goyal, learned Addl.
Advocate General for the State assisted by
Mr Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA-I, Mr
Thakur Azad Singh, learned AGA, Mr
Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
for the informant and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
23.08.2023 passed by learned Special
Judge, SC/ST Act, Prayagraj in Bail
Application No. 4196 of 2023 arising out
of Case Crime No. 114/2023, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 506, 34,
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3
of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 7
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and
Section 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,
registered
at
Police
Station
Dhoomanganj, District Prayagraj.

3. The prosecution story as per the
First Information Report dated 25.02.2023
are that the complainant's husband, Umesh
Pal alias Krishna Kumar Pal, was a
prime witness in the MLA Raju Pal
murder case. It is alleged that in 2006, her
husband, Umesh Pal alias Krishna
Kumar Pal, was abducted, beaten, and
forced by former MP Atiq Ahmad and
his associates to give a statement in his
favour in the Raju Pal murder case. It is
alleged that Umesh Pal had filed an FIR
regarding that incident. Proceedings in that
case were taking place on day to day basis
as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and Hon'ble High Court. Today, i.e.
on February 24, 2023, arguments from the
side of the accused were to be held in the
aforementioned case. For this reason, on
February 24, 2023, her husband, Umesh
Pal, along with his security guards Sandeep
Nishad and Raghavendra Singh, went to the
District Court, Allahabad, in their nephew's
car bearing number UP 70 FB 5433. It is
alleged that as they got out of the car near
their home, the son of former MP Atiq
Ahmad,
along
with
Guddu
Muslim,
Ghulam,
and
nine
other
associates,
launched deadly attack on her husband and
guards with a barrage of bullets and bombs
with
the
intent
to
kill
them.
The
complainant's husband, Umesh Pal, guard
Sandeep Nishad, and guard Raghavendra
Singh were badly injured by the bullets and
bombs. The driver, Pradeep Sharma, who
was sitting in the car, narrowly escaped.
The complainant saw the incident on the
CCTV screen in her room, and she ran
screaming towards the lane. The attackers
kept firing weapons and exploding bombs
as they fled towards the road, threatening
people by saying that anyone who came in
front of them would be killed. People
became frightened and ran here and there.
Chaos ensued. The complainant, her family
members,
and
people
from
the
neighborhood helped in taking her husband
Umesh Pal, guard Sandeep Nishad, and
guard Raghavendra Singh to the hospital.
There, her husband Umesh Pal and guard
Sandeep Nishad died, and the other guard,
Raghavendra Singh, was seriously injured
was
undergoing
treatment,
but
his
condition remained critical. It is alleged
that the murder of her husband Umesh Pal
and the guards were conspired by former
M.P. Atiq Ahmad, his wife Shaista
Parveen, and Atiq Ahmad's brother Ashraf,
and was carried out through their sons and
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
651
associates, which also included Atiq's sons,
Guddu Muslim, Ghulam, and others. It is
alleged that the complainant would be able
to identify the other accused upon seeing
them. This incident was also witnessed by
other family members of the complainant.
The
incident
occurred
between
approximately 4:45 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. It is
further alleged that the complainant would
be able to identify the people who shot and
bombed her husband Umesh Pal and the
guards with the intent to kill them, if they
would be brought before her.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant in
support of the bail contended that the
appellant is completely innocent in the
case. He has been falsely and illegally
made an accused to fulfil a malicious
purpose. The appellant has no connection
or involvement with the alleged incident.
He was falsely implicated during the
investigation to blackmail and pressure
him, simply because he is M.P. Atiq
Ahmad's brother-in-law. The applicant is a
Government Doctor, and was serving as a
Medical Officer at the Community Center
Bhawanpur in Meerut before implication in
the present matter. It is further submitted
that the appellants name came to light
during the investigation about a month later
in the statements of the co-accused. In
reality, there is no legal and reliable
evidence on record against the appellant
during the investigation, except for the
statement given to the police, which is not
legally admissible. No legal and reliable
evidence has been presented to explain the
one-day delay in registering the First
Information Report, even when the police
station and the crime scene are less than a
kilometre away from the Police Station-
Dhoomanganj. The appellant has not
committed any crime. He has no criminal
history and has not been previously
convicted. The applicant is currently in jail
since 1.04.2023 and further there are
numerous prosecution witnesses (83-P.Ws)
and the trial is not likely to conclude in the
near future.

5. It is further submitted that the
prosecution's case against the appellant is
built on a weak foundation. The primary
evidence relied upon by the prosecution
consists of statements of co-accused
persons (Rakesh @ Nakesh @ Lala, Kaish
Ahmad, Mohd. Arshad, Niyaz Ahmad,
Iqbal
Ahmad
@
Mohd
Sazar,
and
Shahrukh) recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C. Such statements are legally
inadmissible
as
substantive
evidence,
particularly against a co-accused, as per the
principles enshrined in Sections 25 and 26
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is a
fundamental
principle
of
criminal
jurisprudence that the statements of a coaccused cannot be used to deny bail. As
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate
of Revenue Intelligence (2018) 8 SCC
271 and reaffirmed in P. Krishna Mohan
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025)
SCC Online SC 1157. In P. Krishna
Mohan Reddy (supra), explicitly cautions
against using police-recorded confessions
of a co-accused to establish a prima facie
case against another. The prosecution's
claim of corroborative evidence, namely
the recovery of a DVR and a mobile phone,
is highly tenuous and circumstantial. The
mere recovery of these items from the
appellant's
house, particularly
in
the
absence of a forensic report proving their
authenticity and a link to the crime, is
insufficient to justify the denial of bail.
Prolonged
incarceration
without
a
substantive basis is a violation of the
appellant's fundamental right to personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bail is the rule, and continued detention
should only be for exceptional reasons,
which are not present in this case.

6. On the contrary, Mr Manish Goel,
learned Addl, Advocate General assisted by
Mr Rupak Chaubey, learned AGA-I and Mr
Thakur
Azad
Singh,
learned
AGA,
appearing on behalf of the prosecution as
well as learned counsel for the informant,
opposed the bail application, submitted that
the accused's name came to light during the
investigation. The accused is facing serious
charges, such as committing murder in
collaboration with co-accused. There are
material evidences collected during course
of investigation suggesting the involvement
of appellant in the crime in question. A
total of three people were murdered in
broad daylight in the middle of a market in
most
gruesome
manner.
The
crime
committed by the accused is of a serious
nature
and
is
punishable
by
death.
Therefore, the bail application of the
accused is liable to be rejected.

7. It is contended that the name of the
appellant surfaced during investigation of
the present case in the statement of co
accused Rakesh @ Nakesh @ Lala, Niyaz
Ahmad, Kaish Mohammad and Mohd Iqbal
@ Sajar recorded on 29.03.2023 (CD 36).
These accused persons had clearly stated
that they along with other co accused
persons including Atiq Ahmad and Ashraf
used to call each other through whatsapp
and face time. The active involvement of
appellant is explicit from their statements.
Co accused, Shahrukh @ Sharookh @
Sarup has also stated about involvement of
the appellant in the present case (CD 38). It
is stated that the appellant was arrested by
the police in connection with present case
and from his possession i-phone was
recovered. The appellant did not provide
the password of his phone deliberately in
order to hide his complicity in the present
case and for want of password, digital data
from his iphone could not be recovered by
FSL (CD-146). The aforesaid witnesses in
their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
have categorically and specifically assigned
the role to the accused appellant and his
family members for providing financial
assistance to the assailants as and when
required.

8. It is further submitted that the
present matter is not a minor offence; it's a
heinous and barbaric act of triple murder
in
broad
daylight.
The
fundamental
principles of bail, as per Prashanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
(2010) 14 SCC 496 and Neeru Yadav v.
State of U.P. (2014) 16 SC 508, require the
court to prioritize the interests of society
over individual liberty in such grave cases.
The appellant's argument regarding the lack
of evidence is a gross misrepresentation of
the facts. While it is true that statements of
co-accused to the police are not substantive
evidence at trial, they are still material for
consideration at the bail stage. In support
of this argument, he placed reliance on the
case of Indresh Kumar Vs State of UP
and another, 2022 Live Law (SC) 610,
wherein Supreme Court has observed that
"..... Statements under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C may not be admissible in evidence,
but are relevant in considering the prima
facie case against an accused in an
application for grant of bail in case of grave
offence." Crucially, the prosecution's case
does not rest on these statements alone.

9. It is further submitted that the
statements
of
co-accused
Rakesh
@
Nakesh @ Lala, Niyaz Ahmad, Kaish
Mohammad and Mohd Iqbal @ Sajar and
Shahrukh are duly corroborated by the
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
653
statements
of
independent
witnesses
Abhishek Yadav, Shailendra Kumar Pal,
and Saurabh Jaiswal, which were recorded
under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., a process
that ensures voluntariness and carries
greater evidentiary value than a police
statement. These witnesses corroborate the
pre-planned nature of the conspiracy to
eliminate Umesh Pal. The recovery of a
DVR and a mobile iPhone from the
appellant's residence, which the prosecution
has authenticated with Section 65-B
certificate. The DVR contained footage
showing a co-accused (Guddu Muslim) at
the appellant's house after the crime. This is
not mere "circumstantial" evidence; it is a
direct link establishing the appellant
provided shelter and aid to a prime accused
after the crime. It is further submitted that
the reliance on the P. Krishna Mohan
Reddy (supra) is misplaced. That case
primarily dealt with the inadmissibility of a
co-accused's confession in isolation. In the
present case, the statements of the coaccused are supported by a chain of other
evidence, including the legally admissible
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and the
physical and electronic evidence recovered
from the house of the appellant. The
collective weight of this evidence, even at
the prima facie stage, is sufficient to
establish the appellant's deep involvement
in the criminal conspiracy. It is further
submitted that the appellant, being a relative
of the key conspirator Atiq Ahmad (since
deceased), holds a position of influence.
Releasing him on bail would create a very
real possibility of him influencing or
intimidating witnesses, particularly the other
family members who witnessed the incident
and the co-accused. The brutal nature of the
crime itself indicates a clear intent to instill
fear and subvert the judicial process.
Granting bail would send a dangerous signal
and undermine the administration of justice.
10. It is further submitted that the
present case pertains to a brutal and
premeditated triple murder, executed in
broad daylight in a public place, using
firearms and explosives, leading to the
death of advocate Umesh Pal and two
police
constables
assigned
for
his
protection. This act not only resulted in loss
of innocent lives but also caused public
terror and outrage, striking at the very root
of rule of law and public confidence in the
justice system.

11. The investigation has revealed
that the present appellant, though not a
direct shooter, actively participated in the
conspiracy
by
providing
financial
assistance, logistical support, and shelter to
the prime accused Guddu Muslim and
others, thereby facilitating the execution
and aftermath of the offence. In support of
his argument, learned AAG further relied
upon the cases of Indresh Kumar v. State
of U.P. and Another, (2022), wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
heinous offences involving murder and
conspiracy, the Court must adopt a cautious
and restrictive approach in granting bail.
The gravity of the offence and its impact on
society must outweigh considerations of
individual liberty. The present crime,
involving organized and armed execution
of a witness in a sensitive criminal case,
falls within the ambit of the principle
enshrined in Indresh Kumar (supra). The
appellant's participation in the conspiracy
and assistance to the main assailants clearly
indicate that he cannot claim indulgence of
bail. Learned counsel again relied upon the
case of Vinod Bhandari v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 11 SCC 502 to
contend that liberty is not absolute and
must yield to the interests of society in
cases of grave offences involving moral
turpitude or public impact. If prima facie
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
material establishes complicity, the accused
is not entitled to bail merely on the ground
of delay or completion of investigation.

12. In the present case, the
materials collected during investigation,
including call detail records, witnesses
statements under Section 161 & 164
Cr.P.C., and recovery of incriminating
articles, clearly establish the appellant's
role. The societal impact of the crime is
immense; thus, the balancing of interests
weighs heavily against release.

13. Learned counsel has further
relied upon the case of Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu
Yadav, (2005) 2 SCC 42 to contend that
bail
cannot
be
granted
where
the
accusations are serious, supported by prima
facie evidence, or where there exists
likelihood of tampering with witnesses or
influencing the course of trial. The Court
must consider not only the right to liberty
but also the larger interest of administration
of justice.

14. In the present case, the
appellant belongs to a highly influential
criminal network, being closely related to
the main accused Atiq Ahmad. There is a
legitimate apprehension that if released, he
will intimidate witnesses and obstruct the
course of justice. Hence, denial of bail is
justified on this ground alone.

15. It is further argued that so far as
the argument of learned counsel for the
appellant
that
the
appellant
was
not
physically present at the crime scene is
untenable in view of the well-settled law on
common intention and constructive liability
under Section 34 IPC. Learned counsel for
the State further relied upon the case of
Krishnan and Another v. State of Kerala,
(1996) 10 SCC 508 to argue that the
common intention can be inferred from
conduct and circumstances; physical presence
is not a prerequisite. Even one who aids or
facilitates the crime is equally liable. In the
present case, the appellants financial and
logistical support to co-accused demonstrates
his shared intention with the principal
offenders.

16. Learned counsel for the State
further relied upon the case of Virendra
Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010)
8 SCC 407 to argue that common intention
may
develop
before
or
during
the
commission of the offence, and active
participation is not necessary if facilitation is
proved. The appellant's role in harbouring
and financing absconding accused after the
crime establishes his conscious participation
in furtherance of the common intention. It is
further submitted that in the present case,
seven accused persons including the wife of
the appellant who is also an accused are still
absconding. A reward has been announced by
the State Government for her arrest but still
she is not traceable.

17. Learned AGA further relied upon
the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, (2019) 15 SCC 599; Jasdeep
Singh @ Jassu v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2
SCC 545 to contend that once a concerted
plan or meeting of minds is proved, each
participant
becomes
equally
culpable,
irrespective of the extent of individual
participation. In the case in hand, the material
on record establishes such concerted planning
among all accused, including the appellant,
rendering him liable for the offence of
murder under Section 302 read with Section
34 IPC.

18. Learned A.G.A. further submits
that the confessional statements recorded
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
655
during investigation, when read with other
corroborative evidence, clearly establish
the
appellant's
active
role
in
the
conspiracy. Reliance is placed on State of
U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi
(2005) 8 SCC 21, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the question of
voluntariness or admissibility of confession
is a matter of trial, and at the stage of bail,
such
statements
can
legitimately
be
considered to assess the existence of a
prima facie case. It is further submitted that
the confessional material in this case
demonstrates premeditation, participation,
and conscious facilitation of the crime.

19. It is further submitted that the
co-accused Atiq Ahmad and Ashraf, in
their
statements
recorded
before
the
Investigating Officer (when they were
alive),
had
given
detailed
accounts
implicating the present appellant. It is
contended
that
these
statements
are
admissible under Section 32(3) of the
Indian
Evidence
Act,
1872,
being
statements made against the interest of the
maker,
exposing
them
to
criminal
prosecution. Reliance is placed on Ramrati
Kuer Vs. Dwarika Prasad Singh (AIR
1967 SC 1134) and other decisions of this
Court reiterating that such statements may
be relevant for corroboration when they
form
part
of
the
same
transaction.
Accordingly,
these
statements
lend
additional support to the prosecution's
version of a common conspiracy under
Section 34 IPC. Following this principle,
this Hon'ble Court, in a catena of decisions

including
Criminal
Misc
Bail
Application No. 30712 of 2021-Jay Kant
Bajpai @ Jay v. State of U.P., Criminal
Misc Bail Application No. 21849 of 2021Jay Bajpai @ Jay Kant Bajpai v. State of
U.P., Criminal Misc Bail Application No.
48444 of 2020- Vinay Kumar Tiwari v.
State of U.P. (2021), and Criminal Misc
Bail Application No. 14950 of 2021-Smt.
Rekha Agnihotri v. State of U.P. decided
by this Court has reiterated the
admissibility and evidentiary relevance of
such statements under Section 32(3) of the
Act. Accordingly, the existence of these
statements and their probative value under
Section
32(3) of
the Evidence
Act
substantially reinforce the prosecutions
version
and
constitute
relevant
facts
lending credibility to the allegation of
common intention under Section 34 IPC.
Viewed
cumulatively,
these
materials
negate any presumption of innocence at
this stage and establish a strong prima facie
case justifying the continued custody of the
appellant.

20. At last, it is argued by learned
counsel for the State that looking to the
appellant's
influence,
resources,
and
association with a known criminal network,
there
exists
a
real
and
substantial
apprehension that his release would lead to
threats, intimidation, or inducement of key
witnesses, thereby obstructing the trial
process.

21.
Learned
counsel
for
the
informant has also pointed out specific role
of each of the accused appellant and has
adopted the arguments that was advanced
on behalf of the State.

22.
This
court
has
carefully
considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for parties and has perused the
available material on record. In the present
matter, three person lost their lives in a
most gruesome manner. The accused is
charged with collaborating with co-accused
to commit the murders of the complainant's
husband and two police guards (a total of 3
persons) by openly attacking them on the
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
road in broad daylight with weapons and
bombs, spreading terror among the general
public. The crime committed by the
accused is of an extremely serious nature,
and is punishable by death or life
imprisonment.

23. This court takes note of the
statement of co-accused Rakesh @ Nakesh
@ Lala, a domestic servant for Atiq Ahmad.
The statement of co-accused Rakesh directly
implicates the appellant- Akhlaq. He has
stated that Atiq and his brother Ashraf
instructed co-conspirators to seek financial
assistance from appellant-Akhlaq and his
nieces in Meerut. Furthermore, Rakesh
claimed that after the murder, co accused
Guddu Muslim visited appellant's house and
was given shelter and 50,000 rupees. Further
statement of co accused Kaish (Driver of
Atiq
Ahmad)
corroborates
Rakesh's
statements, confirming that Atiq and Ashraf
instructed the group to get money from
Akhlaq (appellant) and their nieces in Meerut
if needed.

24. In the same-way, the coaccused Shahrukh has also given statement
against the appellant Akhlaq, that "Atiq
Ahmed and Ashraf told a group of people
gathered for a meeting that if they needed
money after the incident, they should get it
from appellant, and his wife, Ayesha Noori,
because they had already been informed
about the plan. The murder plan for Umesh
Pal was also discussed with Akhlaq
(appellant), Ayesha Noori, Ujjala, and
Manjasha over a mobile through Face time
call.
Appellant,
Ayesha
Noori,
and
Manjasha said, "finish the work of Umesh
Pal quickly, we are ready to help you in
every way.

25. In consideration of the bail
application,
this
Court
has
carefully
reviewed the statements and the certificate
submitted as evidence. The prosecutions
case against the appellant is supported by
multiple witnesses statements recorded
under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
According to the statement of Abhishek
Yadav,
recorded
under
Section
164
Cr.P.C., on 24.02.2023, when Umesh Pal
was leaving the MP/MLA Court, this
witness,
who
was
present
nearby,
overheard
co-accused
Vijay
Mishra
instructing Shaulet Haneef to make a phone
call to inform someone that Umesh Pal had
left the Court premises. Vijay Mishra then
allegedly made a call himself, stating that
Umesh Pal should not be spared that day.
Likewise, witness Shailendra Kumar Pal, in
his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.,
corroborated this version. Further, in his
statement recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C., witness Saurabh Jaiswal stated that
1012 days prior to the incident, he
overheard a conversation at a tea stall
between Rakesh alias Naakesh, a servant of
Atiq Ahmad, and another individual,
wherein Rakesh mentioned that Umesh Pal
would meet the same fate as Raju Pal, and
that Vijay Mishra and Shaulet Haneef
would look after the legal matters. These
statements
lend
corroboration
to
the
prosecutions case of a premeditated
conspiracy to eliminate Umesh Pal.

26.
Regarding
the
appellant's
submission on the inadmissibility of
evidence, this Court notes that the Supreme
Court, in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
(Supra), has repeatedly cautioned that a
detailed evaluation of the merits and
elaborate documentation of pros and
cons of the evidence are not required at
the stage of bail.

27. The question of whether the
statements of witnesses and that of co-
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
657
accused persons are legally admissible and
sufficient to secure a conviction is a matter
for the trial court, in light of Sections 25
and 26 of the Evidence Act. However, for
the limited purpose of establishing a prima
facie case for denying bail, the material
collected
during
the
investigation,
particularly the statement of co accused
persons namely, Rakesh @ Nakesh @ Lala,
Kaish Shahrukh, which specifically links
the appellant to the pre-meditation and
conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) by virtue
of his providing financial assistance, and
shelter to co accused- Guddu Muslim after
the incident cannot be completely ignored.

28. Regarding the appellants
submission
that
the
trial
would
be
prolonged due to a long list of witnesses,
the
submission
is
premature
and
speculative and cannot by itself be a ground
for granting bail in a case involving grave
offences punishing under Sections 120-B
302 IPC and other serious provisions of the
IPC. In the case of the State of Karnataka
Vs Sri Darshan, Criminal Appeal No.
3528-3534 of 2025 decided on 14.08.2025
emphasized that in cases involving heinous
offences like murder coupled with criminal
conspiracy, courts must exercise caution
while considering bail applications.

29. At the stage of considering bail,
the Court is not required to meticulously
examine the admissibility of each piece of
evidence, but only to ascertain whether the
material collected during investigation
prima facie indicates involvement of the
accused. The statements recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. also form part of the
material which the Court may legitimately
take into account at this stage. In State of
U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8
SCC 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that while considering bail, the Court may
look into the case diary and the statements
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., though
such
statements
are
not
substantive
evidence at the stage of trial. Similar
principles have been reiterated in Kalyan
Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @
Pappu Yadav, (2004) 7 SCC 528 and
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15
SCC 422.

30. Moreover, the recovery of a
DVR and a green Apple mobile phone from
the appellant's residence further implicates
him. The DVR contained footage showing
the co-accused, Guddu Muslim, at the
appellant's house aftermath of the incident.
The appellant allegedly admitted hiding the
DVR to conceal evidence of the coaccused's involvement, and the recovered
mobile
iphone
was
used
for
communications
with
other
accused
persons
in
the
alleged
crime.
The
prosecution has also submitted a certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence
Act, which attests that the electronic
evidence related to present case.

31. In the present case, the
prosecution has placed reliance upon the
statements of co-accused Rakesh (domestic
servant of Atiq Ahmad), Kaish (driver),
and Shahrukh, and other several witnesses,
who have implicated the appellant in
providing financial assistance, and shelter
to co accused- Guddu Muslim after the
incident, and in being privy to the
conspiracy.

32. It is further alleged that a DVR
containing CCTV footage showing coaccused at the appellant's residence, and a
green Apple mobile phone used for
communication, were recovered from the
house
of
the
appellant.
While
the
evidentiary value of these materials is a
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter for trial, but at this stage they cannot
be brushed aside.

33. The principles for granting or
rejecting bail, especially in cases involving
serious and non-bailable offenses, are wellestablished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in catena of decisions. While the
fundamental principle of "bail is the rule,
jail is the exception" is acknowledged, it is
not an absolute rule, particularly in cases of
heinous crimes. The court must balance the
right to personal liberty with the larger
interest of society.

34. In Prashanta Kumar Sarkar
v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14
SCC 496, Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT
of Delhi (2021) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme
Court reiterated the factors to be considered
while granting or refusing bail. These
include: the nature and gravity of the
offense; the severity of the punishment in
the event of a conviction; the reasonable
apprehension of the accused absconding or
fleeing
from
justice;
the
reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being tampered
with or influenced; the character, behavior,
means, position, and standing of the
accused; the likelihood of the offense being
repeated; the impact the accuseds release
may have on the prosecution witnesses and
the society.

35. The principles of bail have also
been discussed in landmark judgments such
as Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7
SCC 528 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v.
State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. While
the latter case primarily deals with
anticipatory bail, the principles regarding
the court's wide discretionary power and
the need to consider the nature and gravity
of the accusation are highly relevant.
36. In State of U.P. v. Amarmani
Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, the Honble
Supreme Court held that the nature of
accusation, gravity of the offense, severity
of punishment in the event of conviction,
possibility of tampering with witnesses or
evidence, and likelihood of the accused
fleeing justice are crucial considerations. In
Prashanta
Kumar
Sarkar
v.
Ashis
Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, the Apex
Court
reiterated
similar
principles,
emphasizing that these factors must guide
the exercise of discretion.

37. In Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422, it was observed
that in cases involving heinous crimes
committed in a barbaric manner, courts
must adopt a cautious approach, for liberty
of an individual cannot be prioritized over
the interest of society. Likewise, in
Masroor v. State of U.P. (2009) 14 SCC
286, the Supreme Court underscored that
the impact of such crimes on society and
the likelihood of the accused influencing
witnesses must weigh heavily in bail
decisions.

38. Further, in Puran v. Rambilas
(2001) 6 SCC 338, it was held that bail
must be refused if releasing the accused
would result in miscarriage of justice or
erode public confidence in the criminal
justice system.

39. This Court has also considered
the
rival
submissions
regarding
the
evidentiary value of the DVR seized from
the appellants residence. Learned counsel
for the prosecution has urged that the DVR
itself
constitutes
primary
electronic
evidence, being the original device in
which
the
CCTV
footage
was
contemporaneously recorded. Reliance has
been placed upon the decisions in Anvar
11 All. Akhlakh Ahmad @ Eklakh Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
659
P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473,
and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1,
wherein the Honble Supreme Court
clarified that when the original electronic
device itself is produced before the Court,
no certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act is necessary, since
such device falls within the definition of
primary evidence under Section 62 of the
Evidence Act. However, there is certificate
of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act,
produced by the prosecution.

40. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that
mere recovery of a DVR cannot ipso facto
establish its authenticity or reliability,
particularly when it is seized from the
house of the accused himself. It has been
urged that electronic records are prone to
manipulation and tampering, and in the
absence
of
a
forensic
examination
establishing the integrity of the data
supporting its authenticity, the DVR cannot
be safely relied upon. It is further submitted
that unless the DVR is directly played in
Court to demonstrate the alleged footage,
the prosecution cannot rely upon copies or
extracts therefrom without its forensic
examination.

41.
In
evaluating
these
rival
positions, this Court is mindful of the fact
that at the stage of considering bail, it is
not expected to undertake a meticulous
examination of admissibility or proof of
each piece of evidence. The test is limited
to whether the material collected during
investigation prima facie indicates the
involvement of the accused.