HC stays UP order on withdrawing cases agst terror accused

Image
Press Trust of India Lucknow
Last Updated : Jun 07 2013 | 12:10 PM IST
The Allahabad High Court today stayed the Uttar Pradesh government's order to withdraw cases against persons accused of indulging in terror activities.
The order was passed by justices Rajeev Sharma and Mahendra Dayal of the Lucknow bench on a PIL filed by local lawyer Ranjana Agnihotri and five others.
While referring the matter to a larger bench, the court gave six weeks time to the respondents, including the central and the state governments, for filing their reply and four weeks for rejoinder thereafter.
The petitioners had sought direction for quashing the order issued by the state for withdrawing cases against persons accused of indulging in terror activities and serial blasts.
The court directed that the order for withdrawing the cases against the alleged terror accused shall be kept in abeyance.
Appearing on behalf of the UP government, Additional Advocate General Bulbul Godiyal submitted that the PIL was not maintainable as earlier a similar petition was dismissed by the Allahabad bench.
She submitted that the Centre's permission was not required for withdrawing the cases.
On behalf of the petitioner's counsel, H S Jain opposed the submission of the state government and said sanction from the central government was certainly required for withdrawing the cases.
As directed by the bench on the earlier date, the entire record of alleged terror accused was not produced by the state government and only a list of their names was submitted with the affidavit.
The court had on Wednesday last directed the state to file an affidavit of alleged terrorist whose cases were recently withdrawn and whether the consent of the central government has been taken or not for the same.
The petitioners have sought direction from the court for quashing the order issued by the state for withdrawing cases against persons accused of alleged terrorist activities and serial blasts after summoning the original order from the opposite parties.
The petitioners have also challenged the validity of section 321 of the CrPC (provision for withdrawing the cases).
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Jun 07 2013 | 12:10 PM IST

Next Story