The Allahabad High Court, on November 7, 2025, dismissed the bail plea of Dr. Akhlakh Ahmad, a government medical officer and brother-in-law of slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad, in connection with the high-profile Umesh Pal triple murder case. The bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav said the material gathered during investigation clearly indicated Ahmad’s “active participation” in the conspiracy to eliminate Umesh Pal, who was a prime witness in the Raju Pal murder trial.
Background
According to the prosecution, on February 24, 2023, Umesh Pal was ambushed with bombs and bullets near his Prayagraj residence by Atiq Ahmad’s son and associates, including Guddu Muslim and Ghulam. Umesh Pal and two police guards were killed on the spot, sending shockwaves across Uttar Pradesh.
The prosecution alleged that Akhlakh Ahmad, who was serving as a Medical Officer in Meerut, provided shelter and financial help to Guddu Muslim after the attack and was deeply involved in planning the assault through encrypted calls and FaceTime meetings.
Ahmad’s counsel, senior advocate Brijesh Sahai, argued that his client was falsely implicated merely because of his relation to Atiq Ahmad. He claimed there was no direct evidence, only inadmissible police statements from co-accused, and that his client had been in custody since April 1, 2023.
“The entire case is built on conjecture and the so-called recovery of a DVR and a mobile phone, which prove nothing,” counsel contended.
Court’s Observations
The Court, however, was not persuaded. It held that while statements of co-accused under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence at trial, they can be considered at the bail stage to assess prima facie involvement.
“The statements of co-accused Rakesh @ Nakesh, Kaish, and Shahrukh directly link the appellant to the criminal conspiracy,” the bench observed.
Justice Yadav noted that according to witness accounts, Atiq and his brother Ashraf had directed their men to seek money from Akhlakh and his family for executing the murder plan. Further, Guddu Muslim allegedly stayed at Akhlakh’s house after the killing and was given ₹50,000. The DVR recovered from the appellant’s residence reportedly showed footage of Guddu Muslim there after the crime.
“The recovered electronic devices and corroborative witness statements form a strong chain of circumstances establishing a prima facie case,” the judge wrote, stressing that the case went “far beyond mere verbal allegations.”
Court’s Reasoning and Legal Basis
The Court cited several Supreme Court rulings-Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav, Amarmani Tripathi v. State of U.P., and Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.-to underline that in cases of heinous offences, liberty must yield to public interest. The bench said,
“The triple murder committed in broad daylight using firearms and explosives shook public confidence and created terror in society. Granting bail in such a case would send a dangerous signal.”
On the defence’s reliance on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, where the Supreme Court cautioned against denying bail solely on co-accused statements, the Court distinguished the facts. It said that in this case,
“there exists a wealth of other evidence, including statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and electronic proof recovered from the appellant’s home.”
The Court also addressed the argument about prolonged trial due to 83 witnesses, terming it “speculative and premature.” Justice Yadav added that given the accused’s relationship with Atiq Ahmad and his influence, “there exists a real apprehension of witness intimidation.”
Decision
After weighing all material on record, the Court concluded that the allegations were grave and supported by prima facie evidence of Akhlakh’s involvement in providing shelter, money, and coordination to the main assailants.
“The nature of the crime, the public terror it caused, and the overwhelming material collected justify continued custody,” the Court ruled.
Consequently, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the lower court’s decision to deny bail.
“The appeal lacks merit and is hereby rejected,” Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav said while pronouncing the order in a packed courtroom, marking another setback for the accused linked to the sensational Umesh Pal murder case.
Case Title: Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Case Type: Criminal Appeal No. 9417 of 2023
Date Delivered: 7 November 2025
