On Tuesday, the wife of Indian cricket player Mohammad Shami approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Calcutta High Court’s decision to reject her plea to lift the stay on the arrest warrant against her husband issued by a local court. The case revolves around allegations of dowry demand and extra-marital affairs, with Shami’s wife claiming that he engaged in illicit sexual relations with prostitutes during his BCCI tours, in hotel rooms provided by the BCCI. Shami had been granted a stay on the arrest warrant by a Sessions Court in West Bengal. The wife’s counsel includes Deepak Prakash, Nachiketa Vajpayee, and Divyangna Malik Vajpayee.
As per the petition, Mohammad Shami was issued an arrest warrant by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of Alipore on August 29, 2019. Shami challenged this order before the Sessions Court, which stayed the arrest warrant and the entire proceedings of the criminal trial on September 9, 2019. Subsequently,
Shami’s wife approached the High Court of Calcutta but was unsuccessful in obtaining a favorable order. She has now moved to the Supreme Court challenging the Calcutta High Court order dated March 28, 2023, on the grounds that it is legally flawed and violates her right to a speedy trial.
In her plea before the Supreme Court, Shami’s wife expressed concerns over the special treatment given to celebrities under the law. She pointed out that for the past four years, the trial in this case has not progressed and has remained stayed. She further stated that the criminal trial was stayed without any justifiable circumstances, and Respondent No. 3 did not even request a stay of the criminal trial. Thus, the Sessions Court acted in an erroneous and biased manner, which severely jeopardized and prejudiced the rights and interests of the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the stay granted in favor of the accused is unlawful and has caused grave prejudice to her as a victim of the illegal act of brutal assault and violence by the high-profile accused. The District and Sessions Court at Alipore, as well as the High Court at Calcutta, granted a one-sided undue advantage in favor of the accused, which is not only contrary to the law but also violates the principles of natural justice, according to the petitioner.