Dismissed

Mugish @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2023CRLA/3650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a bail rejection order. The court held the case was not fit for bail due to serious involvement in murder following an affair and the motive against the family. The trial is directed to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal and bail application are dismissed; the order of the court below is affirmed.

Mugish @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:126038 Reserved on 31.5.2023 Delivered on 12.6.2023

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3650 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Mugish @ Sonu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sheshadri Trivedi,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sandeep Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sheshadri Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for opposite party no.1 and perused the material on record.

¶7

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 16.12.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Buddha Nagar, has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 615 of 2016, under Sections 364, 328, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kasana, District Gautam Buddha Nagar.

¶8

This is second criminal appeal of the appellant. First criminal appeal No. 329 of 2018 was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 13.10.2020, which is not available now.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the appellant is in jail since 4.9.2016. In the FIR there is allegation that nine persons of a family have gone to visit a Mazar, who were led by a Maulvi , named, Saleem. The aforesaid persons were found to have been drugged by Saleem and thereafter Saleem and driver of vehicle escaped. Some of the family members were unconscious while three persons were found dead in Naraura canal and coaccused, Saleem, driver of the vehicle and a girl were missing. Maruti Eco Sports Vehicle was recovered from a canal where dead bodies of two women and one man were found. One more dead body was recovered, which was identified as dead body of Saleem @ Saleemuddin. Three dead bodies were identified as Smt. Dharmwati, Raje and Preeti. In statements of Lalit and his wife, Sheeetal, they stated that Preeti has given sprite cold drink in collusion with the appellant. The cause of death of Dharmwati, Preeti and Raje was drowning. In the second statement of Sheetal, she alleged that the appellant

¶10

was present in the vehicle with co-accused, Preeti. Six prosecution witnesses have already been examined. PW-1, Ajeet Singh, eye-witness of the incident, has not named the appellant. PW-2, Lalit, has expressed suspicion against the appellant. PW-3, Sheetal, has stated that the appellant was present with coaccused. Hence he was implicated in this case. PW-4, Rajendra, stated that he was not seen the appellant on the scene of occurrence. PW-7 has given entirely different version, which indicates the involvement of Preeti and Lalit in this case. The appellant was not named in the FIR. He was not identified by the test identification parade. There is no evidence of kidnapping of any person against the appellant. He has no criminal history.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that the allegations against the appellant are serious.

¶12

After hearing rival contentions, this Court finds that from the statements of PW-2, Lalit and PW-3, Sheetal that there was affair of the appellant with coaccused, Preeti, daughter of Rajesh. Preeti belongs to scheduled caste of Hindu Community while appellant belongs to Muslim Community. Her family members were not willing to marry her with the appellant and therefore appellant in collusion with Km. Preeti have committed the murder of Rajesh Singh, Dharmawati, Preeti, who were father, mother and Mami of Preeti. It is clear that there was motive for the appellant to commit the alleged offence in collusion with Preeti. It was Preeti, who gave intoxicating cold drink but she did not consumed the same.

¶13

It is not a fit case for enlarging the appellant on bail.

¶14

The criminal appeal and bail application therein are dismissed and order of the court below is affirmed.

¶15

The court below is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.6.2023

¶17

Ruchi Agrahari

¶18

2 of 2

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mugish @ Sonu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mugish @ Sonu 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

Juned Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shonti Alias Shaswat Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sita Sharan Vs State of U.P.

Vikram Singh Thakur @ Lalluram Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhota Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navin Vs State of U.P. and Another