The legal proceedings in the high-profile 2015 lynching case of Mohammad Akhlaq in Noida have taken a new turn. The Additional Sessions Court has advanced the next hearing by 15 days. This decision comes amidst a fresh application filed by the six accused persons seeking to transfer the case from one court to another.
Courtroom Developments and Deferred Hearings
Daily hearings in this sensitive case were originally scheduled to begin on January 6. However, they were deferred by two days after a key witness failed to appear, citing personal reasons. When the court reconvened on Thursday before Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Dwivedi, it was set to record the statement of Akhlaq's wife, Ikraman.
Instead, the counsel for the accused, Devendra Kumar Rahul, informed the court that his clients had filed an application with the District Judge. They sought a transfer of the case due to what he termed "compelling reasons." Rahul argued that the case was being "unnecessarily highlighted and politicised."
Legal Arguments and Counter-Arguments
The defence counsel further submitted that his clients plan to challenge a previous court order. They intend to approach the Allahabad High Court against the Additional Sessions Court's December order, which had rejected a prosecution petition to withdraw the case. Rahul contended that the accused were not given an opportunity to present their statements during that earlier proceeding.
Opposing the transfer plea, advocate Yusuf Saifi, representing Ikraman, raised technical objections. He pointed out that the defence failed to provide any documentary proof, such as a case number, to substantiate their claim of having challenged the December 23 order in the High Court. "We asked them to furnish the case number if admitted, but they couldn't," Saifi stated.
Adding to this, Supreme Court advocate Andleeb Naqvi opposed the transfer request on the grounds of alleged politicization. He emphasized that the proceedings were being conducted openly in court without restrictions on media or individuals. Naqvi also argued that since no stay order was in place, the deposition of the witness should proceed.
Court's Ruling and Next Steps
Judge Dwivedi acknowledged the bona fide right of any litigant to seek a case transfer. After the prosecution counsel raised no objections, the court granted time until January 23 to the accused's lawyer. He must file a fresh application to formally inform the court about the transfer request pending with the District Judge.
Citing a 1995 Supreme Court judgement (PK Ghosh versus JG Rajpur), Judge Dwivedi stated that the court could not proceed with the hearings while the transfer application was pending. Consequently, the court did not record the witness's statement. However, on the request of the victim's counsel, her attendance was officially marked.
The case, which has seen numerous delays and legal complexities, will now see its next hearing advanced by 15 days from the originally scheduled date, as the legal manoeuvres around its jurisdiction continue.
