Stay Of Conviction Is Not A Rule But An Exception To Be Resorted To In Rare Cases: Allahabad HC Refuses To Stay Conviction Of Abdullah Azam Khan
The Allahabad High Court refused to stay the conviction of Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan, son of Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan, in a 2008 criminal case, saying that the applicant was trying to seek relief on “absolutely non-existent grounds.”
The Bench of Justice Rajiv Gupta observed that “In fact, the applicant is trying to seek stay of his conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds. It is well-settled principle of law that stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases.”
Advocate Imran Ullah appeared for the applicant and Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal appeared for the State.
In this case, a criminal case under Sections 341 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered in 2008 against Abdullah Azam Khan and his father Azam Khan for blocking traffic and threatening to set his car on fire, after their vehicle was stopped by the police checking in Moradabad.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate had sentenced Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Azam Khan to two years of imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 3000 each.
Being aggrieved with the order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge under Section 374 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Along with the appeal, an application was also filed for suspending the sentence and releasing the applicant on bail and further, under Section 389(2) CrPC, another application was also filed for staying the conviction of the applicant till the disposal of the appeal.
The appeal was admitted and the applicant was directed to be released on bail. However, the application for staying of conviction during pendency of appeal was not allowed. Aggrieved of the order, the applicant approached the High Court.
The High Court noted that as many as 46 criminal cases were pending against the applicant and said that “It is now need of the hour to have purity in politics. Representatives of people should be man of clear antecedent.”
“In the backdrop of the said circumstances, refusal to stay the conviction would not, in any way, result in injustice to the applicant.” observed the Court.
Accordingly, the application was dismissed being devoid of merits.
Cause Title- Mohammad Abdullah Azam Khan v. State of U.P.
