The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the petitioners in the Hapur lynching case to approach the trial court judge and draw the court’s attention to the statements made by two brothers of the victim instead of directing the Uttar Pradesh Police to file a supplementary chargesheet, The Hindu reported.

In June 2018, the police in Hapur had filed a case against nearly two dozen people after a mob lynched 45-year-old meat trader Qasim Qureshi and injured another, Samaydeen, following rumours of cow slaughter. The main accused, Rakesh Sisodia, who was arrested and then granted bail, later claimed on camera that he was welcomed back after his release from jail. Sisodia also claimed that the police were on his side.

On May 15, Qureshi’s brothers Saleem and Nadeem made statements before the Hapur chief judicial magistrate. The court said it would be appropriate at this stage to permit the petitioners to apprise the trial court about the statements.

A vacation bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Aniruddha Bose was hearing a new interim plea filed by Samaydeen, who had sought more detailed inquiries in the case in view of the revelations made by Saleem and Nadeem.

The petitioners on Tuesday said they will approach the trial court on Wednesday with the brothers’ statements. The petitioners said that the top court had allowed advocate Vrinda Grover’s request for placing on record some additional documents and translations pertaining to the case in the Supreme Court.

On May 2, the Uttar Pradesh government had submitted a fresh status report on the investigation to the top court. In August 2018, the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the matter after Samaydeen moved the court seeking protection and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team inquiry. The court had then directed the inspector general of police of Meerut range to supervise the investigation.

The petitioner requested the Special Investigation Team for “an impartial, competent and fair investigation” into “the barbaric incident of mob lynching”. The petitioner demanded that the court revoke the bail granted to Yudhishthir Singh Sisodia, an accused in the case, and compensation for his medical treatment.