Dadri Lynching Case to Proceed in Fast-Track Court on February 5
The long-pending Dadri lynching case is set to be heard by a fast-track additional sessions court on February 5, following a significant legal development. The district judge in Noida has firmly rejected a plea by six accused individuals seeking to transfer the trial to another court, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot be shifted merely on the basis of apprehensions or unfavorable rulings.
District Judge Dismisses Transfer Petition
On Thursday, District Judge Atul Srivastava delivered a decisive ruling by dismissing the transfer petition filed by the accused. In his order, Judge Srivastava clarified that a criminal trial cannot be transferred to another court simply because of suspicions, apprehensions, or an order that adversely affects one party. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial processes must proceed without undue interference based on subjective fears.
Background of the Transfer Plea
The plea for transfer was submitted by counsel Devendra Kumar Rahul, who represents six of the thirteen accused in the 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq. The accused individuals—Shivam, Sourav Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Binay Rana, Sandeep Sisodia, and Hariom—claimed they were falsely implicated in the case. Their counsel argued that the legal and judicial interests of the accused were compromised due to the court's actions.
Specifically, on January 6, the counsel informed the additional sessions court that his clients intended to challenge a December order that rejected a withdrawal petition before the Allahabad High Court. He contended that the additional sessions court, while dismissing the withdrawal application, did not provide the accused an opportunity to record their statements. Instead, the court directed an expeditious hearing, which the counsel claimed resulted in legal prejudice against the accused.
In his submission, counsel Rahul stated, "Since the court is bent upon forcibly taking further action, there is no possibility of the accused getting justice from the arbitrary action being taken. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the above-mentioned case should be transferred from the Court of ADJ/FTC-1 to some other court."
Opposition from Victim's Family
Counsel Andaleeb Naqvi, representing Akhlaq's wife Ikraman, filed a written objection urging the dismissal of the transfer application as unjustified. Naqvi argued that criminal cases should not be transferred based on mere apprehension or fear. He emphasized that the trial court's order rejecting the prosecution's withdrawal application on December 23 was fully justified.
Naqvi further highlighted, "The trial court is a fast-track court, from which speedy disposal is expected." This statement underscores the importance of expedited justice in sensitive cases like the Dadri lynching, where delays can undermine public confidence in the legal system.
Judicial Reasoning and Dismissal
District Judge Srivastava meticulously addressed each point raised by the accused's counsel before dismissing the petition. He clarified that when evaluating a transfer application, the court is not required to assess the merits of the case or examine whether the lower court's order on the application under Section 321 of the CrPC was appropriate. This approach ensures that transfer pleas are decided on procedural grounds rather than revisiting substantive legal issues.
The judge's ruling reinforces the autonomy of fast-track courts in handling cases efficiently and without unnecessary disruptions. By rejecting the transfer plea, the court has paved the way for the trial to continue as scheduled, aiming for a timely resolution in a case that has garnered significant public and media attention.
Implications for the Trial
With the transfer plea dismissed, the Dadri lynching case will now proceed in the fast-track additional sessions court on February 5. This development is crucial for ensuring that justice is delivered without further delays. The case, which involves serious allegations of mob violence and communal tensions, remains a focal point in discussions about legal accountability and human rights in India.
The fast-track court's role is particularly significant, as it is designed to handle cases that require swift adjudication to maintain judicial integrity and public trust. The upcoming hearing on February 5 will be a key step in the legal journey, potentially bringing closure to a tragic incident that has lingered in the judicial system for years.
