Allahabad High Court stays passing final judgment in eviction case against Azam Khan

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has stayed the passing of any final judgment or order in the consolidated trial of the 2016 forcible eviction case, involving twelve previously separate FIRs against ex-MP Mohammad Azam Khan and several others.

Justice Dinesh Pathak issued the order to put up this case as fresh on July 3 but clarified that the trial in the case would go on. However no final order would be passed till July 3, 2025.

The court gave the order in an application filed by co-accused Mohammad Islam alias Islam Thekedar and another.

In the present case, which originated from 12 FIRs registered between 2019 and 2020 at police station Kotwali, Rampur district pertains to an alleged incident on October 15, 2016, involving the demolition of unauthorised structures on the Waqf property known as Yateem Khana, Waqf no- 157.

These FIRs, initially tried as separate cases, were consolidated into a single trial by the Special Judge (MP/MLA) in Rampur on August 8, 2024. The accused face charges of dacoity, house trespass, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The present high court's decision dated June 11 came after the applicants' counsel highlighted the trial court's determination to conclude the trial within June, raising apprehensions about procedural fairness.

Acknowledging the "peculiar facts and circumstances", Justice Pathak ruled that while the trial may proceed, no final order shall be passed until the next hearing on July 3, 2025.

In a related development, a petition by former Uttar Pradesh minister and ex-MP Azam Khan and his aide Virendra Goel is set for hearing on June 18 as a "mentioned case" before a single judge of the high court.

This petition challenges the trial court's May 30, 2025, orders rejecting their requests to recall informants and key prosecution witnesses, including Zafar Ahmad Farooqui, chairman of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, and to produce exculpatory videographic evidence of the 2016 eviction.

The applicants argue that this evidence, acknowledged by Farooqui, could exonerate them by proving their absence from the scene.