New Delhi: The Uttar Pradesh government has filed an application seeking the withdrawal of charges against all the accused in the 2015 Dadri lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq. The application has cited inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, lack of evidence of prior enmity, and the need to “restore social harmony”.
A group led by Vishal Rana—the son of local BJP leader Sanjay Rana, who does not hold any government post—was arrested for Akhlaq’s lynching in Dadri’s Bisahda village. The incident nearly a decade ago triggered nationwide outrage and massive protests, leading up to the arrests.
A 10 September letter written this year by the Gautam Buddh Nagar district magistrate—following a 26 August Uttar Pradesh government order directing the withdrawal of the case—says that the Governor had granted the written permission for the public prosecutor to implement the government’s direction.
The letter read, “…written permission has been granted by the Governor for the Public Prosecutor to submit an application in the Hon’ble Court and further action has been directed to be taken in compliance with the provisions mentioned in Section-321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (sic).”
This application for the withdrawal of the case has now been filed under Section 321 of the CrPC. It empowers the public prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution in a case, with the court’s consent.
Additional District Government Counsel (ADGC) Bhag Singh Bhati told news agencies that a letter had, indeed, been received from the state government. It, he said, directs the withdrawal of prosecution in the Dadri lynching case.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, criminal and human rights lawyer, said, “…such actions of the state encourage targeting of minorities and contribute to erosion of the rule of law”.
She reiterated how the law prescribes that such an application should be filed by the state in ‘public interest’ only. “By seeking not to prosecute those charged with the heinous offence of lynching a man because of his religious identity, the state is acting in a partisan manner which projects it as a majoritarian regime.”
Speaking to ThePrint, she explained how the Supreme Court, in the 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla, judgment, held “mob lynching to be a hate crime and laid down clear guidelines that cast a responsibility upon the state to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable”.
This application of the state, she said, is not only in “sharp contempt of the mandate of the Supreme Court, but also an abdication of its constitutional obligations”.
The lynching, 2015
On 28 September 2015, a mob stormed Akhlaq’s home. It happened after an announcement that he had slaughtered a cow and stored beef in his refrigerator.
The mob, led by Vishal Rana and his cousin Shivam, dragged Akhlaq and his 22-year-old son, Danish, out of their home. Then they beat the father-son duo until they collapsed.
Akhlaq (52) died at a Noida hospital. Danish survived after undergoing a major head surgery.
Police arrested 18 people, including three minors, and registered an FIR under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), 147 and 148 (rioting and rioting with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly), 323 (assault), and 504 (intentional insult) of the Indian Penal Code.
A 181-page charge sheet naming the 15 accused, including Vishal and Shivam as the main conspirators, was filed that year itself. One of the accused later died in judicial custody.
By late 2017, all the accused had secured bail.
The trial began only on 26 March 2021 after charges were framed against 14 suspects. Progress has been slow. The matter remains in the evidence stage.
The case drew further controversy after a forensic exam of the meat claimed that what was recovered from Akhlaq’s fridge was “cow or its progeny”. Akhlaq’s family disputed the finding, alleging sample tampering. In 2016, a Surajpur court ordered a separate FIR against Akhlaq’s family for alleged cow slaughter.
Also Read: What Amit Shah told me: ‘Not good work, sentiments win elections’
Govt’s reasons for withdrawal
The Akhlaq lynching is currently pending before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge of the Gautam Buddh Nagar Fast-track Court. In the withdrawal application, which ThePrint has seen, the prosecution cites several grounds, such as inconsistencies in eyewitness statements. It notes that four eyewitnesses “have altered the number of accused in their statements”, despite both sides residing in the same village.
Also, the incident concerns the “use of cow meat”, according to the application. The police have also claimed to have recovered “05 sticks, iron rods, and bricks” from the accused, which makes it clear that “no firearm or sharp weapon was used in the incident”.
The state, in the application, invokes the right to equality under the Indian Constitution. It must “provide equal protection to every citizen, regardless of whether they are plaintiff, plaintiff, or accused in any case”.
The application states, “As Indian citizens, everyone enjoys the protection of the Indian Constitution. Their rights are protected by the Honorable Court (sic)”.
Lastly, the prosecution notes “there is no evidence in the case diary” to show “any previous enmity or rivalry or hostility” between Akhlaq’s family and the accused’s.
It concludes that “for the larger purpose of restoring social harmony”, and in continuation of the government order dated 26 August 2025, issued by the Special Secretary, Justice Section-5 (Criminal), the state seeks the withdrawal of the case under Section 321 CrPC.
What court & family can do
The prosecutor’s request does not automatically end the case. The Surajpur court is to independently determine whether the move is in the interests of justice. It takes into account the stage of the trial and evidence already recorded.
The Supreme Court, in rulings including the Sheonandan Paswan, Rajender Kumar Jain, and State of Punjab vs. Union of India, has repeatedly held that courts must ensure withdrawal was not an attempt to shield accused persons for political or extraneous reasons.
At the next hearing, slated for 12 December, the court may also hear objections from the complainant, victims, or any “person aggrieved”.
Akhlaq’s family has the right to oppose the withdrawal by filing a written objection before the Surajpur court. Courts have in the past refused state withdrawal moves in murder, rioting, and communal violence cases after victims’ families objected.
Under the legal scheme, advocate Vrinda Grover explained, “it is the court that will finally decide the fate of this misconceived application”.
“The principles of law in this regard are well settled by the Supreme Court. The court will examine whether the application has been made in good faith, in the interests of public policy and justice, and not to thwart or stifle the process of law. On all these grounds, this application deserves to be outright dismissed,” Grover opined.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: In world of govt compensation, Akhlaq & Akbar aren’t same, nor are Pulwama & Sukma soldiers