Muzaffarnagar DM Opposes Yogi Govt, Says Can't Withdraw Riot Cases Due to Administrative Reasons
Lucknow, August 13: The Muzaffarnagar district administration in its report to the government has advised that the withdrawal of 113 cases related to Muzaffarnagar and Shamli riots would not be advisable on an administrative level.
In March this year, the Yogi Adityanath-led BJP government in Uttar Pradesh had initiated the process to withdraw 131 cases related to the riots in 2013.
District magistrate Muzaffarnagar, Rajiv Sharma said, “Under the constitutional process anyone can apply for rollback of cases. This practice is being continued by this government and was used by the previous government as well. After a thorough investigation on 13 points by the police, we have recommended to the government that the withdrawal of cases will not be advisable on administrative level.”
The riots, which took place during Akhilesh Yadav’s tenure as CM in August-September of 2013, left more than 40,000 homeless. A total of 502 cases were registered in connection with the riots, in which 6,867 people have been accused.
News18 had reported in February that Hindu-Muslim communities had organised Hindu-Muslim panchayats to amicably resolve the issue without political intervention. Hindu-Muslim Mahapanchayat was organised in Bulandshahr district’s Barabasti on February 4 which saw the Jat community in Purbaliyan and Muslims of Kutuba village coming together. A decision was taken to withdraw 20 cases registered against members of the two communities.
According to some reports, the panchayat had also raised eyebrows ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections as some political leaders felt that the improving ties between the two communities would prevent them from earning “brownie points”.
Former Union minister Sanjeev Balyan met UP CM Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow, along with BJP MLA Sangeet Som, farmer leader Naresh Tikait and a few others to deliberate on issues pertaining to the riots.
The leaders demanded that most cases of arson filed against Jats be quashed. They claimed that of the 502 cases, around 400 were of arson, with most being bogus filed to get compensation. The Yogi government had then promised to look into the matter.
Courtesy: www.news18.com
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Unnao rape case: SC defers hearing on CBI's plea against suspension of Sengar's life term
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday deferred to the first week of May the hearing on a petition filed by the CBI challenging the suspension of life imprisonment of former BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sura Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that the matter will be taken up after a nine-judge bench completes hearing on the Sabarimala review proceedings.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Sengar, raised the issue of non-hearing of the pleas in another case related to the alleged custodial death of the victim's father in the Delhi High Court and said that a 10-year jail term was handed down to Sengar in that case.
"Ten years is likely to be completed soon and yet no substantial hearing has taken place in the high court. I should get bail in this matter," he said.
It was alleged by him that even the victim's lawyer is taking adjournments in the high court.
Lawyer Mehmood Pracha, counsel for the victim, said that only one adjournment has been sought in the high court.
The CJI noted the consent of both sides that no adjournment will be sought in the Delhi High Court in another case involving Sengar as one of the accused.
"The lawyers will extend full cooperation (in the HC)," the CJI said.
On December 29, last year, the top court stayed the Delhi High Court order suspending the life sentence of expelled BJP leader Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case and said he shall not be released from custody.
The bench, hearing the CBI's plea challenging the high court order, said that substantial questions of law have arisen in the matter that require consideration.
The apex court had also issued notice to Sengar seeking his response on the CBI's plea.
The bench said it was conscious of the fact that ordinarily, when a convict or an undertrial was released on bail pursuant to an order passed by a trial court or the high court, such an order should not be stayed by it without hearing such a person.
It noted that Sengar was also convicted and sentenced in a separate case and was still in custody in that matter.
"In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we stay the operation of the impugned order dated December 23, 2025, passed by the high court. Consequently, the respondent (Sengar) shall not be released from custody pursuant to the said order," the bench had said.
The top court said various substantial questions of law have arisen for its consideration in the matter.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the CBI, urged the bench to stay the high court order, saying it was a "horrific rape" of a minor child.
The Delhi High Court had, in its December 23, 2025, order, said that Sengar has been convicted under Section 5 (C) (aggravated penetrative sexual assault by a public servant) of the POCSO Act but an elected representative does not fit the definition of a "public servant" under Section 21 of the IPC.
The high court had suspended the jail term of Sengar, who was serving life imprisonment in the Unnao rape case, till the pendency of his appeal, saying he had already served seven years and five months in prison.
The high court order has sparked criticism from a section and there have been protests by the victim, her family and activists.
Sengar had challenged a December 2019 trial court verdict in the case. He had, however, remained in jail since he was also serving 10 years' imprisonment in the custodial death case of the victim's father and has not been granted bail in that case.
The rape case and other connected cases were transferred to Delhi from a trial court in Uttar Pradesh on the directions of the Supreme Court on August 1, 2019.
Sengar's appeal against his conviction in the case of the custodial death of the survivor's father is also pending, where he has sought suspension of sentence on the ground that he has already spent a substantial time in jail.
In its plea filed in the apex court, the CBI referred to its verdict in the L K Advani case in which it held that anyone who holds public office, like MPs or MLAs, would be deemed a "public servant".
It contended that the high court erred by declaring that Sengar, an MLA when the offence was committed, was not a "public servant" to be prosecuted under POCSO and granted him bail.
