Putting forward its view on the multiple FIRs against Azam Khan, the Uttar Pradesh government has said in the Supreme Court that the Samajwadi Party MLA is a habitual offender and he should not be given bail. The SP leader’s lawyer, on the other hand, has alleged that the UP government was making his client a victim of political vendetta. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Supreme Court has reserved its decision.
Regarding the recent FIR registered against Azam Khan, the UP government said that in the year 2020, an FIR was registered in the case and in 2022 Azam Khan’s name was added. On this, the court asked why the complainant took two years to add Azam Khan’s name in this case. At the same time, Azam Khan’s lawyer Kapil Sibal said that this FIR was registered when Azam was in jail.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Azam Khan’s petition, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said that Azam Khan had threatened the investigating officer when his statement was being recorded. During this, the ASG read the threats made by Azam Khan to the officers in the courtroom. He said, “Azam Khan had said that I am not going to die yet. If my government comes, I will avenge each and every one, and you too will have to come to this jail. Let my government come, you will see what I do. I will not leave the SDM who filed cases against me, just let my government come in power.”
On this, the Supreme Court said that this is not a threat, this is what the leaders say every day. At the same time, Azam Khan’s lawyer Kapil Sibal said that Azam Khan has been in jail for two years, he should be given bail now. On this, the Uttar Pradesh government said that we are demanding a judicial inquiry against Azam Khan.
It was said on behalf of the UP government that “Azam Khan is a habitual offender. He has illegally occupied land. Many complaints have been filed. All the documents given by him are fake. He should not get bail.” At the same time, Azam Khan’s lawyer Kapil Sibal said that his client has nothing to do with that school. “He doesn’t go to that school. Just its chairman. There is just a letter, in which his custody has been demanded,” said Sibal. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Supreme Court reserved the hearing of the matter.
Read all the Latest Politics News here
Comments
0 comment