Noida: The Dadri lynching case will be heard by a fast-track additional sessions court on Feb 5 after the district judge rejected a plea by six accused to transfer the trial. On Thursday, district judge Atul Srivastava rejected the transfer petition, saying that a criminal trial cannot be transferred to another court merely based on suspicions or apprehensions, or an order passed adversely to a party.Counsel Devendra Kumar Rahul, representing Shivam, Sourav Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Binay Rana, Sandeep Sisodia and Hariom—six of the 13 accused facing trial in 2015 lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq—had sought a transfer of the case on ground that his clients were falsely implicated in the case. On Jan 6, the counsel had told the additional sessions court that his clients had decided to challenge a Dec order rejecting a withdrawal petition before the Allahabad High Court. He submitted that while rejecting the withdrawal application, the additional sessions court did not give an opportunity to the accused to record their statements. Instead, it ordered an expeditious hearing.The counsel argued that this action of the court caused legal and judicial loss to the accused. “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,” the counsel said.Counsel Andaleeb Naqvi, representing Akhlaq’s wife Ikraman, subsequently filed a written objection and requested that the application be dismissed as it was unjustified. He said that the court should not transfer a criminal case on the basis of mere apprehension or fear. “The order of the trial court, rejecting the withdrawal application of the prosecution on Dec 23, is completely justified. The trial court is a fast-track court, from which speedy disposal is expected,” he said.The district judge took up the issues raised by the accused’s counsel and dismissed them pointwise. He said that when considering a transfer application, this Court is not required to consider the merits of the case, nor is it required to examine whether the order passed by the lower court on the application under Section 321 CrPC was appropriate.
