Rampur, October 22: The Uttar Pradesh police on Saturday night shifted Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan and his son Abdullah Azam to different jails from Rampur. Azam Khan, his wife Tanzeem Fatima, and his son Abdullah Azam, who were convicted by a court in Uttar Pradesh on October 18 in a fake birth certificate case, were awarded a seven-year jail term and a fine of Rs 15,000 to all three of them.
'Anything can happen to us'
Before sitting inside the police car, Azam Khan was seen speaking to the media. He said, "Anything can happen to us; we can get encountered in between our journeys." Visuals showed, Abdullah Azam being taken in a police van amid heavy security. Tanzeem Fatima was not shifted to any different location, as she continues to be in Rampur jail.
'Azam Khan has been shifted from jail due to security reasons'
Rampur's Additional SP Sansar Singh has said that he (Azam Khan) has been shifted from jail due to security reasons. If sources are to be believed, Azam Khan is being shifted to Hardoi Jail and Abdullah Azam to Sitapur Jail.
'Abdullah Azam Khan had two birth certificates'
Speaking of the court's judgment, former DGS (Crime) Arun Saxena said, "Abdullah Azam Khan had two birth certificates. Akash Saxena filed a FIR. After the probe, the charge sheet was filed. The court has given its judgment, and all three people were found guilty. On the conviction point, the court sentenced all three to a maximum of seven years' imprisonment. Approximately a fine of Rs 15,000 has also been imposed.
'Abdullah Azam Khan's first birth certificate is of January 1, 1993'
"The former DGC further said that Abdullah Azam Khan's first birth certificate is of January 1, 1993, while the other birth certificate was made from Lucknow, where his birth date is September 30, 1990.
On September 26, the Supreme Court referred to the District Judge, Muradabad, to address the question relating to the correct date of birth of the petitioner, Khan, and sent a finding to this Court for further consideration in the matter. The court had noted that the correct date of birth relating to the petitioner is relevant for the ultimate consideration of the issues raised and to decide juvenility.
