Ikhlaq lynching case: Court rejects UP govt’s withdrawal plea

Ikhlaq, 55, was lynched by a mob in Bisada village on September 28, 2015, after rumours that his family had stored beef at home.

A fast-track court on Tuesday rejected the Uttar Pradesh government’s attempt to withdraw the 2015 Mohammad Ikhlaq lynching case, calling it a “serious crime against society” with no reasoning for withdrawal under Section 321 CrPC.

Representative image. (Pixabay)

“The application of the prosecution under Section 321 CrPC is hereby rejected. Accordingly, the objections are also rejected,” the order said.

The court, headed by additional district judge Saurabh Dwivedi, also directed that the case be heard on a day-to-day basis. “The prosecution is directed to expeditiously present the evidence of witnesses before the Court, so that the case file may be disposed of at the earliest. This Court shall list the present case file on a day-to-day basis in the hearing register,” it added.

The UP government, on September 12, moved an application to withdraw the case saying this was “for the restoration of social harmony”.

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

One laboratory analysis after the lynching claimed the meat found in the refrigerator at Ikhlaq’s home was mutton.

A subsequent laboratory report, first cited by lawyers representing the 18 accused in the case, claimed it was beef.

There have also been conflicting statements on where the meat was found.

To be sure, neither the provenance of the meat, nor where it was found are material to the case.

The matter was initially listed for December 12, where counsel Yusuf Saifi, representing Ikhlaq, sought to file an objection against the government’s withdrawal application. The matter was then listed for December 18, during which senior Supreme Court counsel Andleeb Naqvi, on behalf of Saifi, took over the case and filed an application in which he said the state has “no concrete basis to file the withdrawal application” and was doing so for political reasons . Senior Counsel Hariraj Singh, representing the accused, objected to Naqvi’s application and sought time to file a response. The case was then listed for December 23.

On Tuesday, government counsel Bhag Singh Bhati said he was merely following government orders in seeking a withdrawal.

“The application was moved for social harmony. I received a withdrawal application from the District Prosecution (DP), which was moved at different levels including the state government and district administration. I was following the government order to file it before the court,” he stated.

Singh argued in court that Naqvi has no locus standi as the case is between the court and the state government (which represents the victim). Naqvi countered that he was merely pressing for the rights of the victim, as laid down by jurisprudence.

Speaking to HT, Naqvi said, “When the judge told me that I have no right to argue, I argued that this is a critical situation where I am directly affected and in violation of my Article 20 (protection in respect of conviction for offences), so I have the right to argue.”

He further said he told the court that charges under Sections 302 (murder) and 307 (attempt to murder) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) have been framed after investigation “and all the documents are before the court”.

“What special circumstances have arisen today that it is not considered a crime?” Naqvi said. “If the accused gets bail, what signal will be sent to society? A particular community will say that justice is not served, so it will not disrupt public order ?”

ADGC Bhati told HT, “After a lengthy hearing that lasted for more than an hour, the judge, in open court, said it is a serious crime against society and that there was no reason provided to withdraw the case under Section 321 of the CrPC.”

The court heard the arguments for nearly an hour and passed an order rejecting the UP government’s plea to withdraw the case. The case is now listed for January 6, 2026 to expedite the trial and record the statements of witnesses.

Initially, 10 suspects were named in the FIR. Eight more were added later. Three were minors; one accuseddied in jail, and another died by electrocution while out on bail. Most of the accused were released on bail after spending about 18 months in Luksar jail.

In its withdrawal application, the Uttar Pradesh government argued that the incident was triggered by allegations related to cow meat and that the police recovered five sticks, iron rods and bricks from the accused. “From this, it is clear that no firearm or sharp weapon was used in the incident,” the application said. It further said there was no evidence of prior enmity or hostility between the complainant and the accused.

“All citizens are entitled to equal rights under the Indian Constitution. For the restoration of social harmony, the case needs to be withdrawn,” the government claimed.