Mumbai, June 2 (IANS) A political controversy has erupted after Maharashtra Samajwadi Party chief and MLA Abu Azmi questioned the police encounter in which the prime accused in the Khoda murder case in Uttar Pradesh was killed, alleging that such actions are carried out selectively and influenced by religious considerations.

The remarks came in the wake of the encounter of Asad, the key accused in murder of 17-year-old Surya Pratap Chauhan, who was allegedly stabbed to death on Bakrid in the Khoda area of Ghaziabad. Asad was shot dead during a late-night police encounter on Saturday, an incident that has since generated intense political debate.

Samajwadi Party leader Abu Azmi described the encounter as “extremely wrong” and invoked religious angle to point fingers at the police operation.

“Normally, there is no firing involved except in rare cases. But this has become a model. Criminals should be punished. If someone is a serious offender, give them the death penalty, but there is a Constitution for this. Arrest the criminal, prove the crime in court, and then the punishment is given. However, in Uttar Pradesh, this is being done by looking at religion,” Azmi said.

The Samajwadi Party leader further alleged that encounters were not carried out uniformly against all accused persons and claimed that religion often became a determining factor in such actions.

“If someone kills a Muslim or a Yadav, then the encounters don’t happen. However, if a Hindu is killed by a Muslim or Yadav, then they are caught in encounters as soon as possible. Criminals are criminals — be it Muslim, Hindu or Christian. Every criminal should be punished,” he added.

Azmi’s comments drew support from Maulana Sajid Rashidi, who also questioned the circumstances surrounding the encounter and argued that due legal process should be followed in every criminal case.

Speaking to IANS, Rashidi said, “Not only Abu Azmi, even we have been asserting this very point since the day the encounter took place: that this was a biased encounter. The fundamental question is this: in a democratic nation, there exists a specific democratic system.”

He said that, according to the “democratic system”, an accused individual is first apprehended, interrogated, and subjected to the filing of an FIR and formal charges; subsequently, the matter proceeds to the courts, where the judiciary determines the appropriate punishment.

He further argued that law enforcement agencies should not assume the role of the judiciary and questioned the rationale behind extra-judicial actions.

“If the police, or any government, possesses the direct authority to carry out an encounter against anyone at will, then the billions upon billions of rupees currently being expended on the judiciary should be immediately discontinued, as there would no longer be any rationale for its existence,” Rashidi said.

Rashidi also raised questions over action taken by authorities and called for a comprehensive inquiry into the matter.

“Regarding the claim that a portion of this house was constructed illegally — was this fact unknown previously? If it was known, why was a notice not issued earlier? Why did this information surface only after the fact? Numerous such questions could be raised; the government ought to give serious consideration to these issues as well and conduct a thorough investigation into them,” he added.

–IANS

sd/mr