Allahabad High Court
Kaish Ahmad vs The State Of U.P. And Another on 7 November, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on 28.10.2025 Delivered on 07.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2799 of 2024 Kaish Ahmad ..Appellant(s) Versus The State of U.P. and another ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jyoti Kumar Singh, Rakesh Pande (senior Adv.), Vishakha Pande, Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Praveen Kumar Pandey Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. Heard Mr Rakesh Pandey, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms Visakha Pandey and Mr Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai, learned counsels 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. 3870 of 2023 (Kaish Ahmad vs. State of U.P.) 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 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 as he is not named in the present FIR. 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 has been falsely implicated on his long term employment as a Driver for co-accused Atiq Ahmads family and his proximity with no substantive evidence linking him to the alleged crime. It is further submitted that there is no direct or indirect evidence to suggest that he was privy to any criminal conspiracy or that he facilitated any unlawful activity beyond routine duties assigned in his professional capacity. It is further submitted that mere association or longstanding employment with Atiq Ahmad does not establish criminal intent or participation.
5. It is further submitted that the appellants name came to light during the investigation in the statement of one Mukesh Patel. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of one Rakesh @ Nakesh @Lala, who had been implicated along with the applicant in the statement of Mukesh Patel and has given statement in police custody substantiating the statement of Mukesh Patel. Further the Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of one Shahrukh @ Sharukh, whose name is mentioned in the statement of Mukesh Patel, who has also substantiated the statement of Mukesh Patel in police custody. In reality, except the statement of Mukesh Patel, said to have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there is no legal and reliable evidence on record against the appellant. 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 21.03.2023. and further there are numerous prosecution witnesses (83-P.Ws) and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.
6. It is further submitted that the prosecution's case against the appellant is built on a weak foundation. It is contended that during the investigation, his name surfaced in the charge-sheet. The implication is based on the statement of a witness, Mukesh Patel, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and allegedly substantiated by the statements of co-accused taken from police custody. The prosecution alleges that the appellant was privy to the plan of the occurrence 14-15 days before the occurrence and that he worked as a driver for the main co-accused (Ateeq Ahmad) for certain period of time. 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 co-accused cannot be used to deny bail. As held by the Honble 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). In P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC online SC 1157 explicitly cautions against using police-recorded confessions of a co-accused to establish a prima facie case against another.
7. On the contrary, Mr Manish Goel, learned Addl, Advocate General assisted by Mr Rupak Chaubey 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 that 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. It is further submitted that the charge sheet against the appellant was submitted based on clinching and incontrovertible evidence, which includes recovery of significant amounts of cash and arms directly upon his pointing out, corroborating his substantive involvement in the commission of the offence charged. Therefore, the bail application of the accused is liable to be rejected.
8. It is further submitted that during investigation, Mukesh Patel, an independent witness, who was present during preparatory meetings, gave a detailed statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclosing that about 1415 days prior to the incident, a meeting was held at the residence of Atiq Ahmad, attended by Ashraf, Guddu Muslim, Ghulam, and Kaish Ahmad (present appellant), among others, wherein the plan to eliminate Umesh Pal was discussed. The statement further records that the appellant was aware of the date and time fixed for the execution of the plan and remained in contact with the main conspirators till shortly before the incident. The statement further establishes the appellants active role in hatching and executing the conspiracy to murder alongside co-accused Mohammad Arshad, Rakesh @ Nakesh@ Lala, Mohammad Iqbal Sazar and Niyaz Ahmad.
9. It is, therefore, urged that the aforesaid statement, corroborated by other material collected during investigation, prima facie links the appellant with the conspiracy and demonstrates his active role in facilitating the execution of the crime. The charge-sheet reflects that the appellants role was not peripheral but integral to the conspiracy.
10. 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 SCC 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.
11. It is further submitted that during course of investigation, the name of the appellant surfaced at the first time in the statement of the witness namely Mukesh Patel, who in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.p.C. has clearly disclosed that he has heard the conversation of the present appellant along with other co accused persons when they were hatching conspiracy for committing the murder of Umesh Pal, when the other co accused person, namely, Mohammad Arshad, Rakesh @Nakesh @ Lala, Mohammad Iqbal @ Sazar and Niyaz Ahmad were arrested, who have disclosed in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the present appellant had played active role in commission of the murder of Umesh Pal along with other accused persons.
12. It is further submitted that after the arrest of the appellant and other co accused persons from their pointing out cash of Rs. 72.37 lacs, 5 pistols along with magazines, 5 country made pistols, 112 live cartridges were recovered from their possession, which clearly establishes his involvement in the commission of crime. 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 v. State of U.P. 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.
13. The statements of witnesses clearly corroborates the pre-planned nature of the conspiracy to eliminate Umesh Pal. 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 co-accused are supported by a chain of other evidence, including the statements of other witnesses as well as recovery of huge cash and weapons of several nature. The collective weight of these evidence, even at the prima facie stage, is sufficient to establish the appellant's deep involvement in the criminal conspiracy.
14. 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.
15. The investigation has revealed that the present appellant, though not a direct shooter, actively participated in the conspiracy, 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 Honble 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 appellants 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 material establishes complicity, the accused is not entitled to bail merely on the ground of delay or completion of investigation.
16. In the present case, the materials collected during investigation, witnesses statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the recovery of huge cash and mobile phone from the present appellant, clearly establish the appellants role. The societal impact of the crime is immense; thus, the balancing of interests weighs heavily against release.
17. 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.
18. 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, from the material collected during course of investigation, clearly demonstrates his shared intention with the principal offenders.
19. 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. It is further submitted that in the present case, seven accused persons are still absconding and they have also been rewarded by the prosecution.
20. 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.
21. Learned A.G.A. further submits that the confessional statements recorded during investigation, when corroborated with statements of witnesses clearly establish the appellants active role in the conspiracy. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, wherein the Honble 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.
22. 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 prosecutions version of a common conspiracy under Section 34 IPC. Following this principle, this Honble 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 2021-Jay 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.
23. 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.
24. 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 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.
25. This court takes note of the statement of various co-accused persons said to have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statements of various independent witnesses including that of witness Mukesh Patel, which clearly establish the appellants active role in hatching and executing the conspiracy to murder alongside co accused Mohammad Arshad, Rakesh @ Nakesh @ Lala, Mohammad Iqba Sajar and Niyaz Ahmad. Testimonies of witnesses including the witness Mukesh Patel and other accused not only elucidate the specific details of appellants participation but are further substantiated by huge recovery of cash, mobile and weapons.
26. In consideration of the bail application, this Court has carefully reviewed the statements of witnesses. The investigation and the charge-sheet, based on the statement of the witness Mukesh Patel and the statements of other co accused persons and other materials, link the appellant not merely as an incidental person but as one who was privy to the criminal plan and worked as a driver for the main conspirator. This material, though potentially subject to scrutiny during the trial, is sufficient at this preliminary stage to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy and participation in a capital offence. While the appellant was not named in the FIR, the investigation has led to his charge-sheeting on the basis of evidence indicating his alleged involvement in the criminal conspiracy. The parameters for granting bail in a case involving an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, such as Section 302 IPC, are stringent.
27. 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. Further, the question whether the statements of witnesses and that of co-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 Mukesh Patel, which specifically links the appellant to the pre-meditation and conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) by virtue of his alleged knowledge of the plan and his role as a driver for the main conspirator/accused, cannot be completely ignored.
28. 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 Honble 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.
29. The principles for granting or rejecting bail, especially in cases involving serious and non-bailable offenses, are well-established 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.
30. In Prashanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496, Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs NCT of Delhi (2001) 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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. The recovery of huge cash on the pointing out of the appellant and several weapons cannot be brushed aside altogether at this stage. Whether the recovered materials were used in commission of the crime are the matters to be decided during course of trial. In the present case, the recovery of the huge cash and several weapons, coupled with statements of witnesses suggestive of the implication of the present appellant and also forms part of the prima facie material suggesting his complicity in the crime.
36. So far as the reliance on the judgment of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra) is concerned, which is a recent and significant pronouncement on bail jurisprudence, serves as a crucial guidepost. It emphasizes that statements made by an accused to the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, particularly when used against a co-accused. The judgment rightfully cautions against the potential for evidentiary shortcuts and upholds the principle that confessions to a police officer are generally inadmissible. However, this Court finds that the principles of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy do not singularly govern the outcome of the present bail application. The case at hand is distinguishable on several material grounds. First, the core principle of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy is that a bail application cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a co-accused's police statement. In the present case, the prosecution has presented a wealth of other evidence which forms a strong prima facie case against the appellant. This is not a situation where the co-accused's statements are the only evidence. Secondly, the prosecution has submitted statements of several witnesses (Shahrukh, Mohammad Asad, Rakesh @ Nakesh @ Lala etc) coupled with recovery memo. They lend credibility to the prosecution's claim of a pre-meditated conspiracy and directly implicate the appellant. Thirdly, the investigation has led to the recovery of huge amount of cash, mobile and weapons from the pointing out the appellant. The recovery of these items from the appellant's possession provides tangible, physical evidence that corroborates the statements of the co-accused. This is not a case of mere verbal accusations; it is a case where the investigative findings, though not yet tested at trial, point to a direct link between the appellant and his co-conspirators. Therefore, while acknowledging the legal principles laid down in P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (Supra), this Court concludes that the in the totality of the circumstances and the cumulative weight of the evidenceincluding the statements of the witnesses and co accused persons and the recovered huge amount of cash and weaponssufficiently establishes a prima facie case against the appellant. The case is not a fit one for bail, as the evidence extends far beyond the limited scope cautioned against in the cited judgment. The gravity of the offense, the overwhelming evidence of a criminal conspiracy, and the chilling impact of a brutal triple murder on public safety far outweigh the appellant's plea for bail.
37. Further the judgment of P. Krishna Mohan Reddy (supra) dealt with economic offenses and corruption, while the present case involves a brutal, pre-meditated murder of three individuals in broad daylight using firearms and explosives, an act that has caused public terror. The gravity of the crime is a paramount consideration, as recognized in previous judgments like Prashanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) and Neeru Yadav (supra), which the court has already cited.
38. This Court has carefully perused the submissions of both sides and the available material on records. While the appellant's counsel has argued that the appellant is merely a Driver of brother of main accused Atiq Ahmad and has left his work way back and that the evidence against him is weak, these submissions must be weighed against the gravity and nature of the accusations during the course of trial.
39. The brutal murder of three individuals, including two police guards, in a public area using firearms and explosives, caused widespread panic and terror among the public. This heinous act was not only a cold-blooded killing but also an attempt to intimidate society at large, which is a significant factor to be considered in bail jurisprudence. The charges against the appellant include murder, conspiracy, and offenses under the Explosive Substances Act and the SC/ST Act, which are punishable by death or life imprisonment.
40. The claim of false implication and the delay in the FIR are also matters for the trial court to determine based on the evidence. At this stage, the courts role is only to assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the appellant is linked to the crime. The fact that the appellant's name came up during the investigation, even a month later, suggests that the investigating agency found some material linking him to the crime. The implication of accused on the material collected during course of investigation cannot be ruled out.
41. In the present case, this Court finds that the allegations against the appellant are grave and serious. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates his involvement in the conspiracy. The brutal killing of three persons, including two security guards, in broad daylight with firearms and explosives has shaken public confidence and created terror in society.
42. 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.
43. Accordingly, in light of the totality of the facts, the exceptional gravity and societal impact of the crime, and the strong prima facie material indicating the appellant's involvement in the criminal conspiracy and huge recovery of cash and several weapons, this Court finds no sufficient grounds to grant bail.
The Criminal Appeal lacks merit and is hereby rejected.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) November 07, 2025 RKS/