In a significant legal battle over the November 2024 Sambhal riots, Allahabad High Court on Monday scrutinized petitions from UP authorities and ASP Anuj Chaudhary contesting an FIR lodged by a local magistrate. Hearings resume Tuesday, promising intense arguments from both sides.
Justice Sumeet Gopal heard contentions against the CJM’s directive, prompted by grievant Yamina’s plea. Yamina claimed officers, including Chaudhary, shot his injured son deliberately during the violence that rocked Sambhal last November.
UP’s Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal and counsel AK Sand argued procedural breaches under BNSS Section 175. They stressed the ignored safeguards in subsection (4), mandating preliminary inquiries before targeting duty-bound public servants.
‘No prior station complaint was disclosed, violating essentials,’ Goyal asserted. The magistrate overlooked a police report detailing an active case probe, rendering the FIR premature and overreaching.
The government framed the riots as fallout from escalating disorder, not a standalone police excess. This narrative challenges the complainant’s isolated shooting allegation.
The Tuesday continuation could reshape accountability norms in riot management. Critics see it as state pushback against hasty judicial interventions, while rights groups demand unhindered probes into alleged brutality.
Background: Sambhal’s unrest involved clashes near a sensitive site, injuring several including Yamina’s son. The FIR saga highlights friction between rapid magisterial actions and codified protections for uniformed personnel.
With national eyes on UP’s law-order machinery, the verdict may influence future handling of similar petitions, ensuring procedural rigor amid public outrage.