The apex court was hearing a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to cancel bail for Fasahat Ali Khan, accused of bulldozing the house of a family in Rampur.
Team Clarion
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the Uttar Pradesh government as it opposed the bail of a man accused of bulldozing the house of a family, who lived on the land of an orphanage, in Rampur.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to cancel bail for Fasahat Ali Khan, who has also been accused of looting Rs 20,000 from the victims, a report in Telegraph Online said on Friday.
In the case from 2016, the bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul pulled up the UP government, represented by the state’s additional advocate Ravindra Kumar Raizada, stating, “So, Mr. Raizada, now you agree that bulldozing houses is a wrongful act! That means then you will not follow the principle of bulldozing houses.”
The judge alluded to reports of “bulldozer action” being taken by UP authorities to demolish the houses of accused persons.
The bench comprising Justices Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia was hearing a petition challenging the order of the Allahabad High Court which cited the pendency of other criminal cases against Khan as a ground to set aside the bail.
The petitioner’s lawyer, according to Livelaw.in website, argued that the cases against him were “politically motivated”, filed during the elections. He said: “They are saying custodial interrogation is required but there has been no change in the circumstance. All FIRs are politically motivated, filed during the time of elections.”
To this, Raizada responded: “Past FIRs and crimes committed by him had not been considered earlier so the High Court said they should be considered. He did not appear before the High Court. This man was with a police official. He was working under a political party. He bulldozed the house of a person and looted Rs 20,000 from the house”.
At this juncture, Justice Kaul asked him: “So you agree that bulldozing houses is wrongful? Then you will, of course, not follow the principle of bulldozing houses. Should we record your statement that you say that bulldozing houses is wrong? You just now argued that bulldozing a house is wrong?”
Additional advocate Raizada laughed and said: “My plea is limited to this case. I will not exceed that.”
Ultimately, the bench set aside the High Court order and restored the bail granted by the trial court. “The mere existence of cases during a particular period of time albeit large number but prior to the issue itself shall not be a ground for cancellation,” observed the bench in the order.
Last year, several PILs were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the “bulldozer action” taken by the authorities in the states of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh to demolish the houses of persons accused in cases like riots. The petitioners contended that the authorities were resorting to extra-judicial and disproportionate actions to punish the accused, even before their guilt is established after a legal trial.
The authorities maintain that they are taking action only against unauthorised constructions.
