Explained: The 2017 rioting case against Hardik Patel

Trending 1 month ago 39

A magisterial tribunal successful Ahmedabad connected Monday (April 25) rejected the Gujarat government’s exertion seeking withdrawal of a 2017 rioting lawsuit against Gujarat Congress moving president Hardik Patel and 18 others. The authorities authorities volition entreaty successful the Ahmedabad sessions tribunal against the order.

What is the lawsuit about?

On March 20, 2017, an FIR was filed connected a ailment from Vastral BJP councillor Paresh Patel, naming Patel and 16 others arsenic accused. The councillor alleged that Hardik on with 60-70 others had unlawfully assembled, rioted, trespassed and launched attacks wrong his Vastral residential compound. Paresh had further alleged that the nameplate of his location was breached and the mob had burnt the BJP emblem and the nameplate, and that the mob had verbally abused and threatened to termination Paresh. The accused were charged with offences punishable nether IPC 120B (criminal conspiracy), 142, 143, 149 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 435 (mischief by fire), 452 (trespass), 294 (a), 506(1), the lawsuit was committed to the Ahmedabad magistrate tribunal successful December 2017, with 19 named arsenic accused, including Patidar person Hardik Patel.

Why did the authorities question withdrawal of the case?

While erstwhile Gujarat main curate Anandiben Patel successful 2016 had assured withdrawal of astir 246 cases against Patidars resulting from the 2015 Patidar agitation, the assurance was enactment connected insubstantial lone past month. In February, Hardik had threatened to motorboat a state-wide agitation if the authorities authorities did not retreat the pending cases against Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS) members, adding that Patidar youths would signifier dharna extracurricular houses of Patidar assemblage MPs and MLAs of the BJP if they bash not enactment the request of dropping transgression cases. In March this year, a time earlier Hardik’s deadline for launching the agitation the Gujarat authorities filed applications for withdrawal of 10 transgression cases of Ahmedabad metropolis against astir 40 Patidar members for unlawful assembly and rioting from earlier the Ahmedabad magistrate tribunal and sessions court. Nine of these cases (eight earlier sessions and 1 earlier magistrate) basal withdrawn arsenic connected date, pursuing court’s bid allowing the state’s applications for withdrawal. The latest lawsuit that the sessions tribunal permitted to beryllium withdrawn nether provisions of CrPC conception 321 being connected April 11 which progressive 7 accused charged for offences of rioting and unlawful assembly nether IPC and nether provisions of the Prevention of Damage To Public Property Act. The 2017 Ramol lawsuit remains the lone lawsuit wherever the state’s plea for withdrawal of the lawsuit has been rejected.

What did the tribunal accidental portion rejecting the state’s plea?

As per further nationalist authoritative astatine Ahmedabad magistrate tribunal DM Raval, the tribunal had chiefly reasoned that nary nationalist involvement would beryllium served if the lawsuit is withdrawn and that the authorities had not justified arsenic to however nationalist involvement volition beryllium served by withdrawal of this case. While rejecting the state’s application, the tribunal besides sought the beingness of the accused for framing of charges connected May 2. Hardik faces 28 cases successful all, of which 2 are nether the sedition law, each related to the 2015 quota agitation violence. The Supreme Court precocious stayed his condemnation successful a lawsuit of rioting lodged successful Visnagar of Mehsana territory during the agitation.

What next?

According to the further nationalist authoritative astatine Ahmedabad magistrate tribunal DM Raval, the authorities is successful the process of filing an entreaty against the magisterial court’s rejection, chiefly connected the crushed that the magisterial tribunal has erred successful rejecting the state’s exertion for withdrawal of the case.