Allahabad High Court delved into the contentious Sambhal violence fallout Monday, addressing UP government and ASP Anuj Chaudhary’s pleas against a magistrate’s FIR directive. The bench will reconvene Tuesday for final submissions.
At the center: Sambhal CJM’s order on Yamina’s application, accusing police of murderous intent in shooting his son amid November 2024 riots. Chaudhary and team seek quashing, citing BNSS violations.
Justice Sumeet Gopal’s court heard from AAG Manish Goyal, who slammed the magistrate for bypassing Section 175(4)’s twin-phase protocol—essential for shielding officials on duty from vexatious cases.
Key lapses flagged: No evidence of initial police station report by complainant, plus dismissal of extant FIR and ongoing probe report. ‘Jurisdictional overstep,’ Goyal charged, as the order nullified police findings.
State lawyers depicted Sambhal’s melee as tension-boiled chaos, contextualizing police response beyond a single shooting claim.
This high-stakes hearing spotlights rule-of-law tensions in India’s riot-prone regions. Outcomes could fortify or erode barriers against premature officer prosecutions.
Broader context reveals Sambhal’s November flare-up as part of recurring site disputes, with casualties on multiple sides. Yamina’s grievance amplifies calls for transparency in police firing protocols.
As proceedings advance, expect scrutiny of BNSS mechanics and magistrate discretion. The decision may recalibrate power dynamics between courts and executive in maintaining order.