The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has set aside a trial court order rejecting the state government’s application to withdraw prosecution against BJP MLA from Rudauli in Ayodhya district, Ram Chander Yadav, in connection with the 2012 idol immersion riot case.
Allowing the state’s plea, a single bench of Justice Rajeev Singh observed that the public prosecutor’s application before the trial court had been filed “in good faith after careful consideration of the material on record.”
The order was passed on May 4 while hearing a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC filed by Yadav, along with a criminal revision plea by the state of Uttar Pradesh. Additional advocate general VK Shahi appeared for the state.
According to the prosecution’s case, on October 24, 2012, tractors carrying idols for immersion caused a traffic jam in front of the Rudauli police station. Despite police instructions to move ahead, the drivers allegedly refused to comply.
It was alleged that Yadav had instructed them to halt there with the idols until he arrived. As a result, a large crowd gathered at the spot.
When Yadav reached the site, he reportedly informed the police that while the procession was passing by a mosque, a boy from another community had been accidentally smeared with colour, triggering an altercation during which an idol was damaged.
The FIR alleged that Yadav made aggressive statements, demanding action against those responsible before allowing the procession to proceed. Although the tractors later moved on his advice, by then a crowd of around 2,000 to 3,000 people had assembled.
It was further alleged that, following his provocation, around 250-300 people moved towards the village where the dispute had occurred and began pelting members of the other community with stones and attacking police personnel, leaving several injured.
Subsequently, the FIR was registered against him.
In June 2020, the state government issued an order to withdraw prosecution in the case. However, in October 2021, the trial court rejected the public prosecutor’s application. A fresh order was later passed following directions from the high court, but the application was again rejected.
The state government and the applicant moved the high court. Allowing the pleas, the court permitted the withdrawal of prosecution and set aside the trial court’s orders.
