The Allahabad High Court has granted conditional bail to Pooja Shakun Pandey, also known as former Mahamandaleshwar Annapurna Bharti, in connection with the high-profile murder of Aligarh-based bike showroom owner Abhishek Gupta. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal allowed the bail application on Monday, noting a lack of conclusive evidence linking Pandey to the alleged murder conspiracy.
The case dates back to September 26, 2025, when Abhishek Gupta was shot dead while traveling on a bus. According to the First Information Report (FIR), two individuals on a motorcycle intercepted the bus and opened fire, leading to Gupta’s immediate death.
The prosecution alleged that Pooja Shakun Pandey and her husband were key conspirators in the killing. The primary evidence presented against Pandey consisted of 11 phone calls made from her mobile device to a co-accused, Faizal, on September 27, 2025—the day following the murder.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution’s case rested solely on call detail records (CDR). They contended that there was no “conclusive evidence” or material proof to establish that Pandey was involved in a criminal conspiracy to eliminate the deceased.
The prosecution, however, maintained that the frequency and timing of the calls between the applicant and the alleged shooters indicated a clear link to the conspiracy.
In its review of the case, the High Court distinguished between the roles of the primary accused and the alleged conspirator. The court noted that the specific task of executing the shooting was assigned to co-accused Faizal and Asif, who were identified via CCTV footage and from whom the murder weapons were recovered.
Regarding Pandey’s involvement, Justice Deshwal observed:
“Taking into account the fact that specific role of causing fire arm injury has been assigned to co-accused Faizal and Asif, they have also been identified in CCTV footage and recovery of fire arms were also made on the pointing out of co-accused Faizal and Asif and only role assigned to the applicant is conspiracy but there is no conclusive material showing the involvement of the applicant in the aforesaid conspiracy.”
The court further emphasized that the applicant is a woman and considered the overall nature of the evidence and the extent of her alleged complicity without delving into the final merits of the trial.
The Court concluded that the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail. The application was allowed subject to the condition that Pandey must cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation and attend all trial proceedings.
