A recent ruling by the Court of Appeal has seen the prison sentence of TikTok influencer Mahek Bukhari reduced following her conviction for murder. Initially sentenced to a minimum of 31 years and eight months for her role in the deaths of two men, the court has now amended her term to 26 years and 285 days.
Background of the Case
Mahek Bukhari was convicted in September 2023 for her involvement in the fatal crash that killed Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin. The incident occurred in February 2022 during a high-speed car chase in Leicester.
The case stemmed from Mahek’s mother, Ansreen Bukhari’s, extramarital affair with Saqib Hussain. Following an escalation of threats from Hussain, demanding payment to prevent the release of sexually explicit material, the Bukhari family allegedly planned a meeting at a Tesco car park in Hamilton, Leicester, to confront him.
Court Proceedings
During the appeal, Mahek’s barrister argued that her young age and immaturity warranted a lighter sentence. Lord Justice Warby noted that Mahek was just 22 at the time of the offenses, emphasizing that her youth and recognition of immaturity had been insufficiently considered in the original sentence.
- Original Sentence: 31 years and 8 months
- Reduced Sentence: 26 years and 285 days
- Victims: Saqib Hussain and Hashim Ijazuddin, both aged 21
- Date of Incident: February 2022
- Date of Appeal Ruling: 17 October 2023
Other Sentences Affected
Additionally, three other co-defendants have also had their sentences reduced. Ansreen Bukhari was sentenced to a minimum of 26 years for her role in the murders. The appeal also resulted in shorter sentences for other accomplices involved in the case:
| Name | Original Sentence | New Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Natasha Akhtar | 11 years and 8 months | 9 years and 8 months |
| Ameer Jamal | 14 years and 8 months | 12 years and 8 months |
| Sanaf Gulamustafa | 14 years and 9 months | 12 years and 9 months |
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal recognized the severe implications of the car chase. However, it concluded that the defendants’ minor roles should have significantly influenced their sentences. The ruling reflects a call for a more balanced approach to justice, especially considering individual circumstances such as age and maturity.
