SC reacts to UP’s objection to bail in a house bulldozing case

The objection raised by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the grant of bail to a person accused of bulldozing a house sparked a noteworthy comment from the Supreme Court. During the hearing of a petition challenging an Allahabad High Court order that revoked the bail granted to Fasahat Ali Khan, accused of forcibly demolishing a house and looting Rs. 20,000 in Rampur in 2016, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul questioned UP Additional Advocate General (AAG) RK Raizada, if bulldozing houses is wrong. The judge appeared to be referring to reports of “bulldozer action” taken by UP authorities to demolish houses of accused individuals.

The AAG’s argument in court revolved around the alleged political motivation behind the cases against Khan, filed during the time of elections. However, the bench, also comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, eventually set aside the High Court order and reinstated the bail granted by the trial court. The bench observed that the mere existence of cases against Khan from a particular period should not be sufficient grounds for bail cancellation.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of restoring the bail, the case sheds light on the contentious issue of “bulldozer action” employed by authorities in dealing with accused persons, prompting discussions on the legal implications and human rights concerns surrounding such actions.

Source: Live Law

Latest Indian news

Popular Stories

Latest Video