Dismissed

Mustafa v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jun 2023CRLA/320/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal against the Special Judge's order rejecting bail in a SC/ST Act murder case. The court found motive, corroborated police statements from the appellant and co-accused, and recovery of the weapon on the appellant's pointing out to be insufficient grounds for bail.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; bail application of the appellant rejected.

Mustafa Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125632

¶2

Reserved on 19.05.2023. Delivered on 08.06.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 320 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mustafa Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shyam Lal,Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Smt. Abhilasha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 29.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Gaziabad has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 1439 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Indirapuram, District Ghaziabad.

¶9

There is allegation in the first information report that the sister of the informant, Madhuri @ Palak, widow of Surendra Singh, was tenant in the house of Nathu Tyagi and was living with her three children there. His elder sister along with her husband and children also used to reside with her and her children. His sister used to work in a SPA centre, where she came in contact with the appellant. She went missing on 06.02.2020 from the place of work. On 10.08.2020 her dead body was recovered and identified. It was alleged in the first information report she used to talk to appellant on his mobile phone for last many days and it was alleged that he caused her murder.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Investigating Officer recorded statements of first informant, Rahul, witnesses,

¶11

Km. Madhu and Ajay on 10.08.2020, wherein they stated that the deceased used to talk on mobile phone with the appellant and used to roam around with him. On the same day appellant was arrested and a damaged mobile phone of the deceased and one knife were recovered from the thickets on road side from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered. The CDR details of the deceased were collected but there is no certificate of the same under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. There were blood stains found on the knife recovered. Except the confessional statement of the appellant there is no evidence direct or indirect against the appellant. Charge-sheet has already been submitted against the appellant. Statement of PW-1 has already been recorded before the trial court but on account of poverty appellant could not engage any counsel hence cross-examination of PW-1 has not been completed as yet.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the appellant has caused the murder of the deceased and threw her dead body in canal. He has pointed out to the statement of the appellant recorded before the police wherein he stated that he had developed relation-ship with the deceased, who was a widow. She used to make repeated demands of money to meet the expenses of her family. Thereafter dispute took place between them. He claimed that he works on the Noori chicken meat shop. He called the deceased by making phone call and caused her murder by making knife blow on her neck in the shop of his friend, Mumirul Islam @ Umar and thereafter threw her dead body with his help. Co-accused, Mumirul Islam @ Umar was also arrested and his confession is at par that of the appellant. There is no contradiction in their confessional statement before the police. Since deceased belongs to schedule caste, implication under SC/ST Act has also been made.

¶13

After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that there was motive for the appellant to commit the alleged offence. The statements of the appellant and co-accused are at par. There is also recovery of knife allegedly used in the crime of the alleged crime on the pointing out of the appellant. His confession stands corroborated from recovery of knife used in crime on his pointing out. It is not a fit case for granting bail to the appellant. Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

2 of 3

¶15

The trial court may make all possible endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 08.06.2023 SS

¶17

3 of 3

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mustafa v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustafa v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Arun Kumar Alias Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikram Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Awadhesh Karan @ Lala Vs State of U.P. and Another