The hearing in the high-profile 2015 lynching case of Mohammad Akhlaq in Noida has been advanced by 15 days by the additional sessions court. This development comes after six accused individuals filed an application seeking to transfer the case from one court to another, citing compelling reasons.
Court Proceedings and Transfer Request
Daily hearings in the case were initially set to begin on January 6 but were postponed for two days after a scheduled witness failed to appear. When the fast-track court of Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Dwivedi reconvened on Thursday to record the statement of Akhlaq's wife, Ikraman, a new twist emerged.
Counsel for the accused, Devendra Kumar Rahul, informed the court that his clients had filed an application with the district judge seeking a transfer of the case. He argued that the matter was being "unnecessarily highlighted and politicised." Rahul also stated that his clients plan to challenge the additional sessions court's December order, which rejected a prosecution withdrawal petition, before the Allahabad High Court.
Legal Arguments and Objections
Advocate Yusuf Saifi, representing Ikraman, strongly objected to the transfer application on technical grounds. He pointed out that the defence failed to produce any document proving they had challenged the subordinate court's December 23 order in the high court. "We asked them to furnish the case number if admitted, but they couldn't," Saifi stated in court.
Supreme Court advocate Andleeb Naqvi also opposed the defence's transfer plea, arguing that the case was not assuming an undue political character. He emphasized that proceedings were being conducted in an open court with no restrictions on media or public attendance. Naqvi further noted that since no stay order was in place, the deposition of witnesses should proceed.
Court's Decision and Next Steps
Judge Dwivedi acknowledged the bona fide right of any litigant to seek a case transfer and sought the opinion of the prosecution counsel, who raised no objections. However, citing the Supreme Court's 1995 judgement in the PK Ghosh versus JG Rajpur case, the judge stated the court could not hear the case while the transfer application was pending before the district judge.
The court granted time until January 23 for the defence counsel to submit a fresh application with details of the transfer sought. Consequently, the court did not record the witness's statement but, on the request of the victim's counsel, agreed to mark her attendance for the day.
This case continues to be closely watched, with the next procedural steps expected later this month as the legal teams prepare their arguments for the potential transfer and the impending high court challenge.
