SC Rejects Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan’s Request for Temporary Relief in a Criminal Case

The Samajwadi Party politician Azam Khan’s son had requested the trial court in Uttar Pradesh to postpone making a decision in a criminal case against him until his claim of juvenility was verified, but the Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down his request for an interim injunction.

On September 26, the Supreme Court ordered the Moradabad District Judge to determine Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan’s juvenility in line with the Juvenile Justice Act’s process and to report their decision to them for further review.

Senior attorney Kapil Sibal, speaking on behalf of Abdullah Azam Khan, referred to this order on Wednesday. He requested that the other trial court not move forward with a current criminal case and convict the defendant until the report on juvenility is filed. If the trial court does not issue the final order, the sky won’t fall. Justice may sometimes be impeded by the law. The senior attorney claimed that this sort of case was involved.

The court, however, expressed its reluctance to offer the relief, stating: We see no justification at this time for issuing any interim orders. Post the primary item as per the previous directive when the juvenility report is submitted. The Moradabad District Court was instructed earlier by the top court to investigate the juvenility allegation and report back to it.

Abdullah Azam Khan was found guilty in a 2008 criminal case, and as a result, Abdullah Azam Khan was barred from holding office as an MLA.

2008 saw the filing of a criminal complaint under sections 341 (wrongful restraint) and 353 (assault or criminal force to prevent a public worker from doing his duties) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Abdullah Azam Khan and his father Azam Khan at the Chhajlet police station in Moradabad. They were accused of blocking traffic when the cops pulled over their car to inspect something.

A Moradabad court sentenced Abdullah Azam Khan to two years in prison in the case in February, disqualifying him from serving as an MLA in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly.

The Uttar Pradesh government’s answer was requested by the top court on May 1 in response to a petition filed by Abdullah Azam Khan contesting the high court’s refusal to suspend his conviction in the case that dates back 15 years.

The poll for the Suar Assembly seat, which became vacant after Abdullah Azam Khan’s disqualification, was set for May 10 but the highest court later made it clear that it would depend on the decision of his case. Shafeek Ahmed Ansari of the Apna Dal had won the Suar seat. According to Abdullah Azam Khan, he was a minor at the time of the occurrence.

The high court had said in rejecting his motion that the petitioner was really attempting to get a stay of his conviction on completely fictitious grounds. A stay of conviction is an exception to the norm that should only be used in exceptional circumstances, according to a well-established legal concept.

The concept of disqualification is not exclusive to MPs and MLAs. Moreover, the petitioner is the subject of up to 46 active criminal prosecutions. Right now, having purity in politics is essential. Men with clear antecedents should represent the public, the court had said. On February 13, the father-and-son team received a two-year jail term and a fine of Rs 3,000 apiece from the additional chief judicial magistrate (ACJM). After then, bail was granted to them.

Abdullah Azam Khan was barred from serving in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly two days after his conviction and punishment.