‘Heavens wouldn’t have fallen': HC slamsMeerut trial court for ‘hasty decision’

Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has come down heavily on a Meerut trial court for not waiting for a copy of the order passed by the apex court on the special leave petition (SLP) filed in the related matter.The HC noted that if the additional sessions judge of Meerut had postponed the case for a day or two to examine the order passed by the Supreme Court and act accordingly, "heavens wouldn't have fallen". Allowing the criminal revision petition filed by Hamid and two others, Justice Kshitij Shailendra said it does not approve the approach of the trial court. The bench, in its decision dated Dec 19, also rejected the trial court's summons order. According to the case, a criminal revision petition was filed by Hamid, Akram and Danish in Sept 2024. The petitioners challenged the sessions court's order dated Aug 17, 2024, before the HC, under which the trial court had issued summons to them to face trial in a twin murder case registered in Meerut in May 2020. After investigation, the police removed the names of Hamid and two others from the chargesheet. However, the prosecution filed an application to include these three in the trial, which the trial court accepted. The accused then filed a criminal revision petition in the HC. During the hearing in the HC, the petitioners' lawyer argued that the trial court acted with haste and, despite knowing that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court on Aug 9, 2024, it disposed of the application on Aug 14, 2024, the date on which the SLP was decided. The Supreme Court order, however, was uploaded on its website on Aug 17. Despite this, the trial court passed the impugned (under challenge) order. The prosecution's lawyer argued that it was a "double murder" case and the names of the accused were mentioned in the main case. He argued that removing the names based solely on the statements of independent witnesses was incorrect. He contended that the accused had directly fired the shots, and therefore, they must be prosecuted. In its 18-page judgment, the HC said the previous order had directed a decision in the case within 30 days, but a delay of a day or two would not have been detrimental. The HC also observed that the courts should not do anything that diminishes people's faith in this "sacred institution".