Court rejects case transfer application in Ikhlaq lynching case

The court of district judge Atul Shrivastava held that a case cannot be transferred solely because the “sentiments of a particular community are hurt”

A district court in Gautam Budh Nagar on Thursday rejected an application to transfer the 2015 Ikhlaq lynching case, ruling that proceedings cannot be shifted merely on assumptions or because an adverse order was passed against the accused.

The case will now proceed before additional district judge (Fast Track Court) Saurabh Dwivedi, with the next hearing scheduled for Friday. (Getty Images)

The court of district judge Atul Shrivastava held that a case cannot be transferred solely because the “sentiments of a particular community are hurt.”

The case will now proceed before additional district judge (Fast Track Court) Saurabh Dwivedi, with the next hearing scheduled for Friday.

The transfer plea was moved on January 8 by counsel for the accused, Dinesh Kumar, after Ikhlaq’s wife Ikraman, the first informant in the case, appeared before ADJ Dwivedi, to record her statement. It followed a December 23 order in which the court had termed the lynching a “serious crime against society” and found no valid grounds for the government’s withdrawal plea under Section 321 of the CrPC.

The transfer hearing was initially listed for January 14, but the hearing was rescheduled for January 22, during which the judge gave the defence a final chance to argue the matter.

During Thursday’s hearing, Ikhlaq’s counsel Andleeb Naqvi filed an objection to the transfer plea. “There is no ground which shows that the accused will not get justice under Section 360 BNNS. The victim has a right to be heard, but not the accused, therefore, no injustice has been caused to the accused, although they were heard through their counsel Hariraj Singh, as evident in the December 23 order,” argued Naqvi.

Defense counsel Kumar Dinesh Kumar, cited prolonged delays, noting that 47 notices had been issued to witnesses with poor compliance, leading to non-bailable warrants.

Naqvi countered that only 10 notices were sent to the victim’s updated address, while the rest went to the vacated home where the lynching occurred – a fact recorded in the case diary. He also cited pandemic-related delays and accused the defense of intentionally delaying the trial.

In the objection application against transfer plea, Ikraman said, “The plea of the accused is misplaced and misconceived and there are no grounds for seeking transfer of the case.”

It also cited the ruling in the Usmangani Adambhai Vohra vs State of Gujarat and another (2016), which reads, “Seeking transfer at the drop of a hat is inconceivable. The order of transfer is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because an interested party has expressed some apprehension about the proper conduct of the trial. The power has to be exercised cautiously.”

Subsequently, the court checked the case file to verify the arguments and reserved the order, which was released later in the evening.

The court rejected the TA, holding that mere apprehension or convenience is not a valid ground for transfer after commencement of trial, and relying on Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of Tamil Nadu observed that the petitioner approached the court only after an adverse order, without substantiating any real likelihood of an unfair trial.

Ikhlaq, 55, was lynched by a mob in Bisada village on September 28, 2015, following rumours that his family had stored beef at home. His son, Danish, was injured while trying to save his father. The attack triggered outrage over rising intolerance, with writers, filmmakers, and scientists returning state awards in protest.