Mahul @ Manish Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

"I. Set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 10.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision NO.702 of 2025 (Raj Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) filed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sardhana, Meerut in Criminal Case No.116 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.83 of 2025 (State Vs. Mahul @ Manish Chaudhary and others) U/s 281, 106(1), 324(5) of B.N.S., Police Station Sarurpur, District Meerut."

¶12

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court by order dated 1.9.2025 has not proceeded against the petitioner under Section 105 BNS and the petitioner is being prosecuted under Sections 281, 106(1), 324(5) BNS. The revisional court while examining the order of the trial court has re-appreciated the evidence and has recorded a finding that the Magistrate concerned has not considered the law in proper perspective. As per the allegation in the first information report, it is alleged that two cars were racing on the highway when the deceased was going on scooty and he was hit by the petitioner and he died on the spot. The petitioner was driving the car and he ran away from the spot.

¶13

It is further submitted that although there is evidence of the witnesses that the petitioner was drunk. However, there is no medical report and on

¶14

A227 No. 6614 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

the aforesaid basis, the trial court has not consider it proper to summon the petitioner under Section 105 BNS. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Vs. Sanjeev Nanda, 2012 (8) SCC 450 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. The revisional court after considering the law in respect of Section 105 BNS has proceeded to remand the matter with the direction to reconsider the matter in proper perspective.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondent-informant has opposed the petition and submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Through PS Lodhi Colony, New Delhi Vs. Sanjeev Nanda (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumtances of the case. He submits that when the accused-petitioner was drunk and was driving the car in high speed, then it could be presumed that he had knowledge that the act in question is dangerous enough to have cause death and as such Section 105 BNS could be attracted. In this respect, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 114 of the aforesaid judgment, which is quoted hereunder:-

¶18

"114. The principle mentioned by this Court in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 indicates that the person must be presumed to have had the knowledge that, his act of driving the vehicle without a licence in a high speed after consuming liquor beyond the permissible limit, is likely or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the pedestrians on the road. In our view, Alister Anthony Pareira judgment calls for no reconsideration. Assuming that Shri Ram Jethmalani is right in contending that while he was driving the vehicle in a drunken state, he had no intention or knowledge that his action was likely to cause death of six human being, in our view, at least, immediately after having hit so many human beings and the bodies scattered around, he had the knowledge that his action was likely to cause death of so many human beings, lying on the road unattended. To say, still he had no knowledge about his action is too childish which no reasonable man can accept as worthy of consideration. So far as this case is concerned, it has been brought out in evidence that the accused was in an inebirated stated, after consuming excessive alcohol, he was driving the vehicle without licence, in a rash and negligent manner in a high

¶19

A227 No. 6614 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

speed which resulted in the death of six persons. The accused had sufficient knowledge that his action was likely to cause death and such an action would, in the facts and circumstances of this case, fall under Section 304 Part II IPC and the trial court has rightly held so and the High Court has committed an error in converting the offence to Section 304-A IPC."

¶22

It is to be seen that the Magistrate concerned has not issued the summoning order against the applicant under Section 105 BNSS on the ground that there was no medical report on record. The sufficiency of the evidence is required to be considered at the stage of trial. The material that is available in the case diary is forming the part of summoning the petitioner. It is not in dispute between the parties that there was testimony of the witnesses that the petitioner was drunk and such an aspect has to be considered in proper perspective by the Magistrate concerned. The revisional court committed no error in remanding the matter to the trial court.

¶23

The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶24

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶25

May 12, 2026

¶26

Bhaskar

¶27

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahul @ Manish Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahul @ Manish Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Sharma @ Jeetu vs State of Up and Another

Harinarayan and Others vs State of Up and Another

Mahendrapal vs State of U.P.

Rohit Puri vs State of U.P. and Another

Srinath Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raghunandan Parasar vs State of U.P. and Another