HC stays final order in 2016 forced eviction case against Azam Khan
The stay order came while hearing a petition filed by co-accused Mohammad Islam alias Islam Thekedar and one other. The court noted the petitioners' concern that the trial court was pressing to conclude the matter within June itself.
'Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is clarified that the trial may proceed, but no final order shall be passed till July 3, 2025,' the court observed.
According to the petitioners' counsel, the trial court had last year consolidated 12 separate FIRs, filed at Kotwali police station in Rampur, into a single trial. These FIRs relate to an alleged forcible demolition of unauthorised structures at the Yateem Khana premises on October 15, 2016.
The petition also challenges a May 30 order by the Rampur court, which rejected requests to recall key informants and prosecution witnesses, including Zafar Ahmad Farooqui, chairman of the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The petitioners had sought directions for Farooqui to produce video evidence linked to the eviction drive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Allahabad HC gives relief to LS MP Chandrashekhar in Saharanpur violence case
In a relief for Lok Sabha MP Chandrashekhar, the Allahabad High Court has directed the trial court at Saharanpur to decide afresh his discharge application in connection with a 2017 Saharanpur violence case. Justice Sameer Jain pronounced the order on Friday while disposing of the MP's plea seeking discharge in the case. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Technology Finance Cybersecurity Operations Management Data Analytics Degree Digital Marketing Leadership Healthcare Data Science Public Policy Artificial Intelligence healthcare Project Management Data Science MCA MBA others Management CXO Design Thinking PGDM Product Management Others Skills you'll gain: Duration: 12 Weeks MIT xPRO CERT-MIT XPRO Building AI Prod India Starts on undefined Get Details The Bhim Army chief had challenged the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) court of Saharanpur that had rejected his discharge application on March 10, 2025. The matter related to an FIR lodged against Chandrashekhar on May 9, 2017, at a police station in Saharanpur, alleging that he held a public meeting without permission and incited arson and violence. A chargesheet was filed by the police against Chandrashekhar. The trial court took cognisance of the chargesheet and started trial proceedings. Live Events After hearing both sides, the high court directed the trial court to decide afresh Nagina MP's application for his discharge.
Indian Express
8 hours ago
- Indian Express
Allahabad High Court sets aside Juvenile Justice Board, Pocso court orders; directs minor to be tried as ‘juvenile' and not as an adult
Stating that law is an evolving concept and has to keep pace with time, the Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal revision filed by a minor who had challenged the Juvenile Justice Board and Kaushambi Pocso court orders directing that he be tried as an adult in an alleged rape case involving a minor girl. The court observed, 'This court has no hesitation to hold that the nefarious effects of the visual mediums like television, internet, and social media on adolescents are not being controlled, nor it appears that the government can control the same, to prevent its deleterious effect on the adolescents, due to the uncontrollable nature of technologies involved. The 'Nirbhaya case' was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche.' The criminal revision claimed that the impugned orders wrongly held the revisionist to be tried as an adult, and his assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board, as well as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) court, is not in accordance with the law. The counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the case of both the assessment and medical reports, the experts held that the psychological assessment of the juvenile was suggestive of a mild deficit in intellectual functioning. But the Board had relied upon the allegations made in the First Information Report and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by ignoring the clinical psychologist report and held that it was not bound by the reports submitted by the experts. The counsel argued that denying the expert report will frustrate the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The counsel for the State submitted that although the preliminary assessment report and the report of psychologist are in favour of the minor boy, the Board has recorded clear findings that the revisionist was able to understand the consequence of crime committed by him and, therefore, the Board was not bound to accept the report of the psychologist and held that the revisionist be tried as an adult. 'There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation. He never indulged in any such or other offence earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been certified by the psychologist. Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist,' the high court stated in its order. 'In view of above consideration, the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. Criminal Revision is allowed. The revisionist is directed to be tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board in accordance with law,' the court added.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Hindustan Times
Bomb threat calls received for Mumbai airport, CSMT; turn out to be hoaxes: Police
The Allahabad High Court ruled that maintenance tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act cannot adjudicate property ownership claims, particularly in third-party disputes, which must be resolved in civil courts. The court dismissed a petition from Ishak seeking protection against threats regarding his property, clarifying that the Act primarily addresses maintenance claims against children or relatives.
