On Friday, the Allahabad High Court saw the presiding judge step away from hearing a plea filed by former MP and Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan concerning the controversial Yatim Khana demolition case. The recusal came abruptly in the middle of arguments, leaving the matter to be placed before another Bench to be nominated by the Chief Justice, while the existing protection against the trial Court delivering its judgment continues to operate.
The case traces back to an alleged incident involving the demolition of structures termed unauthorised on Waqf property known as Yateem Khana. Over time, multiple FIRs were registered, eventually consolidated into a single trial before the Special Court designated to hear matters involving MPs and MLAs. The charges include serious offences such as dacoity, house trespass and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, placing the proceedings under significant public and political scrutiny.
The petition before the High Court challenges the trial court’s refusal to recall key prosecution witnesses, including the Chairman of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, and its denial of permission to introduce electronic evidence. The defence argues that the video material they seek to present said to have been acknowledged by the Waqf authority, could show that the accused were not present at the site when the alleged incident took place. In their submission, the trial court’s insistence on shutting out this evidence deprives them of an essential opportunity to counter the prosecution’s allegations.
The State disputes this, contending that the attempt to reopen evidence at this stage is merely an effort to delay proceedings that have already stretched over several years. It argues that the defence had ample opportunity during earlier stages of the trial and that the trial court rightly rejected what it views as belated and unnecessary recall applications.
In earlier hearings, the High Court had indicated that the sweeping prayer seeking quashing of the entire proceedings was too broad and would need refinement if the petitioners wanted meaningful examination of their challenge to the trial court’s procedural orders. The Court had previously allowed the trial to continue but restrained the lower court from pronouncing its final decision, an arrangement that remains in force.
During the recent hearing, the judge withdrew from the matter while arguments were underway. While doing so, it was clarified that the earlier protection against the pronouncement of the trial court’s verdict would remain effective until the case is taken up by another Bench. The matter will now be placed before a new judge as per the administrative allocation.
Source Link
Picture Source :
