Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023BAIL/44051/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the prayer for enlargement. The offence involved murder based on illicit relationship and motive. Confessional statements and corroboration established the applicant's strong motive, leading to rejection of bail given the gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for enlargement on bail during pendency of trial is rejected.

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44051 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Alok Kumar Singh,Vijay Pratap Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist along with Mr. Rabindra Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu, who is involved in Case Crime No. 27 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Rabupura, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution case in brief, informant-Karan Pal Singh who is brother of the deceased-Veer Pal @ Pappan lodged F.I.R. on 11.02.2022 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. with regard to murder of his brother against Neha @ Basu (wife of deceased) and her associates with the allegation inter-alia that his brother has one son and two daughters. Smt. Neha @ Basu-wife of the deceased had entered into an illicit relationship with Mukesh @ Sonu Gujjar, therefore in the year 2018, she along with her elder son and younger daughter started living separately in Dankaur. On 10.02.2022, he received an information that his brother's dead body in half burnt condition is lying in his house. Thereafter, inquest proceedings and post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. F.I.R. also alleges that he is sure that Neha @ Basu along with her associates in order to grab the properties of his brother got his murdered.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is not named in the F.I.R. There is no eye-

¶9

witness of the incident. On 12.02.2022, Neha @ Basu along with co-accused Bhudev Sharma were apprehended by the police and thereafter in the confessional statement of Neha @ Basu, complicity of the present applicant came into light and he was arrested by the police on the same day. It is also submitted that applicant has no concern with coaccused Neha and Bhudev Sharma. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and is languishing in jail since 12.02.2022.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that on 12.02,2022 police apprehended Smt. Neha @ Basu and Bhudev Sharma together on the basis of information of the informer and also recovered Rs. 20,000/- from the possession of Smt. Neha @ Basu, who in her confessional statement disclosed her illicit relationship with the applicant Mukesh @ Sonu and further stated that because of this reason she along with her children left her matrimonial home and since 2018 and started living in Dankaur with applicant- Mukesh @ Sonu as husband and wife. There was a lot of properties in the name of her husband Veer Pal @ Pappan but he instead of giving said properties to her wanted to give it to his brothers, therefore, she along with Mukesh @ Sonu and Bhudev Sharma made a plan to get her husband out of her way. To execute this she hired Bhudev Sharma, who agreed for Rs. 50,000/- to commit murder of her husband. She had given Rs. 30,000/- in advance to Bhudev Sharma and Rs. 5000/- to Rajkumar. She also disclosed that on 09.02.2022 she along with applicant-Mukesh @ Sonu, Bhudev Sharma and Rajkumar barged into the house of Veer Pal @ Pappan and committed his murder, thereafter they in order to remove the evidence, burnt his dead body by pouring petrol on it and after that on 10.02.2022, she informed the police by dialing no. 112 that her husband has been murdered by someone. She further disclosed that today she came to give the remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/-to Bhudev Sharma but she has been intercepted by the police. Thereafter in follow-up

¶11

action, applicant- Mukesh alias Sonu and Rajkumar were also arrested on the same day i.e. on 12.02.2022 and they have also confessed their involvement in the crime in the manner as disclosed by Neha @ Basu. Applicant has also confessed his illicit relationship with co accused Smt. Neha @ Basuwife of deceased. Out of Rs. 30,000/- given by Neha @ Basu, Rs. 12,000/- has been recovered from the house of Bhudev Sharma. Learned A.G.A. referring the statement of Palak-minor daughter of Neha @ Basu pointed out that she has also disclosed that her mother used to take her to a cloth shop in Dankaur and leaving her at the shop used to go on the bike along with the applicant-Sonu who works in the cloth shop. After that she used to come after four-five hours and used to threaten her not to tell any thing to her father. One day she heard his father saying to her mother that I will not give you plot. Lastly it is submitted that the bail application of the applicant is not liable to be allowed.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter, I find that there is no eye witness of the incident. Though it is a case of circumstantial evidence but in the present case confessional statement of accused persons including the applicant have been recorded by audio and video means, which have been collected in a pen-drive and has been made a part of case diary no.13. There is no averment in the bail application that confessional statement of the applicant was obtained by the police under duress. Apart from confessional statement of the accused Neha @ Basu and the applicant-Mukesh alias Sonu regarding their illicit relation with each other, there is other corroborative material in this regard like statement of informant and other prosecution witnesses as well as statement of Palak daughter of deceased and Neha @ Basu. As per statement of independent witness Deo Raj Singh, he had seen Neha @ Basu along with two persons entering into the house of the deceased. It is well settled that a man may tell lie but circumstances do not. On account of illicit relationship of the applicant with wife of deceased, there is strong motive against the applicant.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Saurabh

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar @ Sonu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sallan Maulana Vs State of U.P.

Shivdhakad @ Sudhakar Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Govind Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Yogesh Vs State of U.P.