Umesh Pal Murder Case: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Atiq Ahmad’s Brother-in-Law

The Allahabad High Court has refused to grant bail to Dr. Akhlakh Ahmad alias Ekhlakh Ahmad, brother-in-law of slain gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad, in the sensational murder case of witness Umesh Pal and his two security guards in Prayagraj.

Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, delivering the order on November 7, 2025, upheld the Special Judge’s decision rejecting Ahmad’s bail plea, noting that the material on record established his prima facie involvement in the criminal conspiracy to murder Pal.

Court observed that the triple murder, executed in broad daylight with bombs and bullets, had “shaken public confidence” and created a “sense of terror” among citizens.

"Given the exceptionally gruesome manner in which the crime was committed, the public terror it caused, the involvement of multiple accused in a criminal conspiracy, and the severity of the charges, this Court finds no sufficient grounds to release the accused on bail. Granting bail in a case of such magnitude and societal impact could send a wrong signal and undermine the administration of justice. The court must consider the impact that the release of the accused may have on the public and the witnesses. The possibility of the accused, a relative of a key conspirator, influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out," court said.

According to the FIR lodged by Umesh Pal’s wife, Jaya Pal, her husband, who was a prime witness in the Raju Pal murder case involving Atiq Ahmad, was targeted outside his house on February 24, 2023, by Atiq’s son and his aides, including Guddu Muslim and Ghulam. The attack was captured on CCTV and led to the deaths of Umesh Pal and two police guards, while a third sustained severe injuries.

The prosecution alleged that Akhlakh Ahmad, a government doctor posted in Meerut, played a key role in funding the assailants and providing shelter to Guddu Muslim after the killings. His name surfaced in statements of co-accused recorded during investigation, and the recovery of a DVR and a mobile phone from his house reportedly contained footage linking him to the accused. The prosecution claimed the DVR showed Guddu Muslim at Ahmad’s residence shortly after the incident.

Opposing the bail plea, the State argued that the case involved a “heinous, organized triple murder” intended to silence a key witness and terrorize the public. Court was told that several statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the conspiracy and that the appellant’s close relation to Atiq Ahmad heightened the risk of witness intimidation if released.

The counsel for the appellant, Senior Advocate Brijesh Sahai assisted by Advocate Bhavya Sahai, contended that Akhlakh Ahmad was falsely implicated owing to his family relationship with Atiq Ahmad. It argued that the prosecution’s case rested on inadmissible statements of co-accused, which could not be used to deny bail. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the counsel insisted that the recovery of a DVR or phone without forensic verification was not substantive evidence. He also pointed out that Ahmad had no prior criminal history and had been in custody since April 2023.

Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the statements of co-accused, when supported by independent witnesses and corroborative materials, could be considered at the bail stage. It further noted that the recovered electronic devices, even if their evidentiary value would be determined at trial, “cannot be brushed aside” given their relevance to the investigation.

Concluding that the case revealed “exceptional gravity and societal impact,” the High Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to release Akhlakh Ahmad on bail, thereby dismissing his appeal and upholding his continued custody in connection with the Prayagraj triple murder case.

Case Title: Akhlakh Ahmad @ Ekhlakh Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and another

Order Date: November 7, 2025

Bench: Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav