Allahabad HC Grants Bail to Man Accused of Sending Derogatory Email Against UP Chief Minister

Justice Krishan Pahal allowed bail after finding that over two years of incarceration, a slow trial, and an explained criminal history together justified release.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail on 3 September 2026 to Mubarak Ali, who has been in custody since 20 March 2024 in connection with Case Crime No. 87 of 2024 registered at Police Station Bhitauli, District Maharajganj. Justice Krishan Pahal, sitting singly, held that the applicant had made out a case for bail given the prolonged period of incarceration, the slow pace of the trial, and the satisfactory explanation offered for his single prior criminal case. The order came in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28974 of 2025.

The Allegations in the FIR

The FIR against Mubarak Ali was registered under Sections 153A, 295A, 505(2), 504, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 66 of the Information Technology Act. The prosecution's case, as placed before the court, was that the applicant sent an e-mail containing derogatory remarks against the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh in order to settle a dispute involving a police informant named Jannatunnisha. The e-mail was said to have originated from mobile number 7518508611.

The applicant denied using that mobile number. His counsel, Sri Virendra Singh, argued that the attribution of the device to the applicant was false and that he had been falsely implicated in the case altogether.

Incarceration Period and Trial Status

By the time the bail application was heard, Mubarak Ali had spent approximately two and a half years in jail, having been in custody continuously since 20 March 2024. The court had separately called for a status report on the trial. That report, dated 23 July 2026, disclosed that only four witnesses had been examined while twenty-six witnesses remained to be covered under the charge sheet. With that many witnesses still to be examined, the prospect of an early conclusion of trial appeared remote.

Counsel for the applicant placed the slow trial pace before the court as a specific ground, characterising its progress as moving at a snail's pace. He also addressed the applicant's criminal antecedents: one prior case, which he argued stood explained. The State Law Officer opposed the bail application.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Pahal accepted that criminal antecedents, on their own, cannot justify continued incarceration where the accused has otherwise made out a case for bail. The court noted that the single criminal history assigned to the applicant had been properly explained and did not stand as a bar to release.

Taking the period of incarceration and the speed of trial together, the court arrived at the view “that the applicant has made out a case for bail.” The court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, making clear that the findings in the bail order would not bind the trial judge.

Conditions Imposed

The court directed that Mubarak Ali be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to verification of sureties. The conditions attached to the bail are:

• The applicant shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.
• He shall appear before the trial court as required.
• Breach of any condition will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Order

The bail application in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28974 of 2025 was allowed. The court directed that the observations made while granting bail shall not in any way affect the trial judge in forming an independent opinion based on the testimony of witnesses. The order was passed on 3 September 2026 by Justice Krishan Pahal.