Allahabad High Court: In a bail application filed seeking release of the accused for offences under Sections 147, 384, 506, 201, 120B, 195A, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and under Section 42 B of Jail Act and Section 8 read with Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, during pendency of the trial in the court below, the Single Judge Bench of Sameer Jain, J. granted bail to the accused, observing that he was not named in the FIR and that his name had surfaced only during the course of investigation. The only allegation against him was that he had illegally met Ashraf in jail, with no other direct accusations on record. The Court further reiterated that mere criminal antecedents cannot be a ground to deny bail when a strong prima facie case is made out and the accused has been in prolonged incarceration.
The case forms part of the larger legal proceedings arising from the killing of lawyer Umesh Pal on 24-02-2023 in Prayagraj, who was the prime eyewitness in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case. The Raju Pal case involved Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf (Khalid Azim) as key accused. Following Umesh Pal’s murder, the investigation widened to include several associates of Atiq and Ashraf. Notably, both Atiq Ahmed and Ashraf were shot dead on 15-04-2023 while in police custody, in an incident that was broadcast live across the country, sparking widespread public outcry and raising serious questions about custodial safety and the rule of law.
The FIR, dated 07-03-2023, was initially lodged against seven accused persons, accusing them of conspiring to commit murder and making illegal entry into Bareilly Jail. The accused was not named in the FIR but was implicated later based on the statement of a co-accused, alleging that the accused also met Ashraf in jail.
The accused’s counsel submitted that:
-
He was not named in the FIR.
-
The only allegation against him was that he met Ashraf in jail.
-
He had a criminal history of four cases, which was explained in the affidavits.
-
In one case under Section 302 IPC, the accused was not named in the FIR and was later implicated during investigation.
-
He had been in custody since 29-11-2024, i.e., for 10 months.
-
Criminal antecedents alone should not be grounds for denying bail if a case for bail is otherwise made out.
The AGA opposed the bail, arguing that:
-
The accused was a close associate of Ashraf, a hardened criminal.
-
Investigative evidence showed the accused met Ashraf in Bareilly Jail.
-
He had a criminal background, including a case under Section 302 IPC relating to the murder of a witness in another murder case.
The Court observed that the accused was not named in the FIR and his name had surfaced only during the course of investigation. The sole allegation against him was that he had illegally met Ashraf in jail, and there were no other direct accusations on record. The accused’s criminal history, including a case under Section 302 IPC, had been duly explained in the affidavits, and notably, he was not named in the FIR in that case either. The Court also took into consideration that the accused had already been in judicial custody for a period of ten months. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763, the Court reiterated that mere criminal antecedents should not be a ground to deny bail when a strong prima facie case and prolonged incarceration are established.
The Court further emphasised the well-settled legal principles that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, and that an accused must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The Court found merit in the accused’s submissions and allowed the bail application. The accused was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions, including:
-
Regular appearance before the Trial Court,
-
No tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses,
-
No involvement in criminal or anti-social activities.
It was also clarified that the Court’s observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not affect the trial.
[Sadakat Khan v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. – 20849 of 2025, decided on 07-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Applicant(s): Sameer Uddin, Siddhartha Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
