The Allahabad High Court has recently made a pivotal decision in the case against Congress leader Randeep Surjewala, rejecting his petition to quash the ongoing trial in a 23-year-old case. This case, registered at the Cantt police station in Varanasi, involves charges of vandalism, rioting, and damaging public property during a Youth Congress protest related to the then-famous Sanvasini incident.
Justice Rajveer Singh, presiding over the matter, dismissed Surjewala’s plea, which argued that the FIR, charge sheet, and other documents related to the case had almost been destroyed due to the passage of time, thereby warranting the cancellation of the trial process. Additionally, Surjewala’s demand to cancel the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court was also rejected.
In his petition, Surjewala contended that the FIR in the case was lodged in 2000, but the case was committed to the court of sessions only in 2022, leading to a long and undue delay in the trial. He also highlighted that certain original records of the case were not available with the prosecution. However, the High Court, led by Justice Rajveer Singh, observed that the delay in the trial was primarily due to Surjewala’s own actions, as he did not appear before the court for about two decades, despite the issuance of process against him. The court stated,
“In such circumstances, when he himself has not appeared before the ED except once, such relief cannot even be considered by this court, at this stage.”
The High Court also addressed the issue of the charge sheet’s legibility, refusing to direct the trial court to supply legible and readable copies to Surjewala. The court noted that the copies had already been supplied and the trial court had recorded its satisfaction that they were legible. The court opined,
“Merely because a few words are not legible or readable here and there, it cannot be a ground to again make any direction to the Trial Court in regard to the supply of copies.”
Furthermore, the court dismissed Surjewala’s prayer challenging an order of the trial court, which had dismissed his Section 91 CrPC plea seeking copies of statements and other evidence. The High Court noted,
“Thus, the accused has no right to seek the production of alleged documents by invoking provisions of section 91 CrPC. Even otherwise, the trial court has observed that as per the report of the police station, none of the documents, as sought to be summoned by the applicant, is available at the police station.”
In related developments, the Supreme Court granted Surjewala five weeks’ protection against a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) in this case. A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra ordered that the NBW issued against Surjewala shall not be executed for five weeks, granting him four weeks to move the application before the Varanasi court and seek cancellation of the NBW.
This ruling marks a significant development in the long-standing case against Surjewala, setting the stage for the commencement of the trial in a case that has been pending for over two decades.
