Allahabad HC Grants Relief To Sambhal MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq, Stays Proceedings In Violence Case

Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has granted significant relief to Sambhal MP Zia-ur-Rehman Barq by staying further proceedings in a lower court against him in connection with the Sambhal violence case.

Next Hearing Scheduled for September 9

The court has also sought a response from the Uttar Pradesh government within three weeks. The matter will next be heard on September 9.

Representation by Senior Legal Counsel

Appearing for the MP, former Additional Advocate General and senior advocate Imran Ullah, along with advocates Vineet Vikram and Iqbal Ahmad, argued the case. Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal represented the state. Barq has challenged the chargesheet filed against him in the case.

Case Stems from November 2024 Jama Masjid Violence

The case pertains to violence that broke out on November 24, 2024, during a survey at the Jama Masjid in Sambhal. Following the incident, Sub-Inspector Deepak Rathi lodged an FIR at the Kotwali police station against Barq, Samajwadi Party MLA Iqbal Mahmood’s son Suhail Iqbal, and several hundred others, accusing them of offences including rioting and incitement.

Chargesheet and Cognisance Order Challenged

In his petition, Barq has sought the quashing of the entire proceedings pending before the Sambhal Special Judge (MP/MLA) and Civil Judge (Senior Division). He has specifically challenged the chargesheet filed on June 12, 2025, and the cognisance order passed by the Sambhal court on June 18, 2025. The petition also requests that no further action be taken against him until the High Court disposes of the matter.

Also Watch:

Linked Bail Order in Related Case

The state government and Sub-Inspector Rathi have been named as respondents in the case. Notably, in a related development on July 24, the High Court granted conditional bail to Shahi Jama Masjid president Zafar Ali, who had been arrested on March 23, 2025, after his name surfaced during the investigation, despite it not being mentioned in the FIR.