The wife of Indian cricket team player Mohammad Shami on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court order which had dismissed her plea seeking to lift stay on the arrest warrant against Shami by issued by a local court.
The Indian Cricket Team player Mohammad Shami's wife has challenged the Calcutta High Court order dated March 28 2023 whereby her prayer for quashing the order of Session Court was dismissed.
A Sessions Court in West Bengal had stayed the arrest warrant issued against Shami.
Used to demand dowry, had illicit extra-marital sexual affairs: Shami's wife
The wife of current Indian Cricket Team player Mohammad Shami has moved the Supreme Court through her counsels Deepak Prakash, Advocate-on-Record, Nachiketa Vajpayee and Divyangna Malik Vajpayee, Advocate, alleging that Shami used to demand dowry from her and that he has been continuously involved in illicit extra-marital sexual affairs with prostitutes, especially during his BCCI tours, in the hotel rooms provided by the BCCI, even till the present day.
According to the petition, an arrest warrant was issued against Shami by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, on August 29 2019.
Mohammad Shami challenged the said order before the Sessions Court, which, on September 9 2019, stayed the arrest warrant and the entire proceedings of the criminal trial.
Consequently, Shami's wife moved to the High Court of Calcutta but failed to get any order in her favour. She moved to the Supreme Court against the Calcutta High Court order dated March 28 2023.
She said that the impugned Order is manifestly erroneous in law, which is in blatant violation of her right to a speedy trial. Shami's wife in a plea before the Supreme Court raised concerns that there shall not be any special treatment for celebrities under the law.
Trial has been remained stayed from last 4 years
Notably, from the last 4 years, the trial has not progressed and has remained stayed, she said.
"Criminal Trial in the present case has been stayed for the past 4 years, without any just circumstances, in a case wherein Respondent No. 3 did not even pray for the stay of criminal trial and his sole grievance was only against the issuance of Arrest warrants against them, thus, the Sessions Court acted in an erroneous and biased manner, by virtue of which the rights and interests of the Petitioner have been severally jeopardized and prejudiced," the petitioner said.
"That such stay has been granted in favour of the accused person is bad in law and has caused a grave prejudice who has been a victim of the illegal act of brutal assault and violence against the petitioner herein by this high profile accused in favour of whom the District and Sessions court, Alipore, as well as High Court at Calcutta, vide impugned order has granted a one-sided undue advantage in favour of the accused which is not only bad in law but is also against the principle of Natural Justice," the petitioner said.
