Uttar Pradesh government says Mathura accused can meet counsel in jail
[ad_1]
They have been jailed together with Malayalam journalist Siddique Kappan whereas they have been on their approach to Hathras in October final.
The Uttar Pradesh government has knowledgeable the Allahabad High Court that the lawyer for the three individuals jailed together with Malayalam journalist Siddique Kappan whereas they have been on their approach to Hathras in October final can be allowed to meet them in jail.
The courtroom is listening to a habeas corpus writ petition filed by an uncle of one of many accused individuals looking for the discharge of Atiq-ur-Rehman from alleged “unlawful custody”.
The petitioners’ counsel have alleged they weren’t being allowed to meet the accused in jail.
Research scholar Atiq-ur-Rehman, activist Masood Ahmed, Kappan and Mohammad Alam, the motive force of the cab ferrying them, have been arrested by the Mathura police on October 5 whereas they have been on their approach to meet the household of the Hathras rape and dying sufferer.
Sedition cost
They have been booked below the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and sedition, charged with allegedly elevating funds for terror acts and accused of conspiring to set off caste riots over the Hathras incident. Their households had claimed that they have been falsely implicated and made scapegoats by the State government.
A division Bench of Justices Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Shamim Ahmed on January 28 heard the matter. Counsel for the petitioners submitted earlier than the courtroom that respondent No.5 in the case, Mathura jail Superintendent, was not permitting counsel of the accused petitioners to meet them in jail.
U.P. further advocate normal Manish Goyal mentioned counsel might meet the petitioners in jail in accordance with the jail handbook.
Shashwat Anand, counsel for the accused petitioners, informed The Puucho, “the action of the jail authorities in denying the detenus their indefeasible fundamental right to consult and be adequately defended by their legal practitioners, falls foul of the mandatory provisions of Articles 22 and Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.
Such elementary rights might by no means be suspended or held in abeyance, besides below a declared nationwide emergency, he contended. The courtroom had allowed them to meet the petitioners, the lawyer acknowledged.
