In court, Junaid’s father slams claims by Haryana govt counsel

Father Jalaluddin (right) has sought transfer of probe.

Junaid Khan’s father Jalaluddin Tuesday presented an affidavit in the Punjab and Haryana High Court saying that the government counsel’s claims — that the family wanted Rs 2 crore and three acres of land for a “compromise” in the murder case — were “false, baseless and deserve to be condemned”. The state government, in turn, said that his plea seeking a CBI probe was aimed at “prolonging the trial proceedings for obvious reasons”.

The plea seeking a CBI probe and stay on the trial proceedings was adjourned for hearing before the single bench of Justice Rajan Gupta Wednesday. Meanwhile, a trial court in Faridabad recorded statements of four prosecution witnesses in the case. A hearing is slated there too on Wednesday.

Jalaluddin, father of the 15-year-old who was killed by a mob on a Mathura-bound train, brought the affidavit in the High Court after Additional Advocate General Deepak Sabharwal stated in court that the family wanted money from the accused for a compromise. Sabharwal claimed the information was provided to him by the DSP.

“These allegations have resulted in gross defamation of the petitioner (Jalaluddin). However, it is significant that the allegations furnish clear proof of the mala fide on the part of the government of Haryana,” he said in the submission. Stating that panchayats had been organised in his village with the “direct objective of the same to interfere in the administration of justice”, Jalaluddin said the government was “knowingly shutting eyes in this matter”.

In its response, the government said the allegations against Haryana Police were false, and that the plea for a CBI probe was not maintainable as the probe had already been concluded.  “The present petition filed by the Petitioner is an abuse of the process of law with an objective to prolong the trial proceedings for obvious reasons,” the reply filed by DSP (Railways) Mohinder Singh read.

Singh, in the submission, also said that the fight in the train had initially taken place for a seat “and during altercation some derogatory words were uttered by the accused persons in respect of the complainant party’s religion”. “There was no pre-planning or conspiracy on the part of the accused persons,” Singh said.