The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail at this stage to Gujarat Patel community leader Hardik Patel, arrested on charges of sedition and conspiracy against the state.
Mr Patel is in jail since October 19 for inciting mobs to kill police personnel and vandalise government properties in support of the community’s demand for inclusion in the OBC list. A bench of Justices J.S. Khehar and Rohinton Nariman, after hearing senior counsel Kapil Sibal for the petitioner and A-G Mukul Rohatgi for Guja-rat posted the matter for further hearing on Janu-ary 5 along with another petition filed earlier.
The Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti leader has challenged two FIRs registered against him by the Gujarat government. In the first FIR of October 18, the Gujarat government had registered criminal cases against him under various provisions, but the Gujarat HC had upheld the charges against him only under two IPC sections 124A (sedition) and 115 (abetment of the offence). The high court had quashed the main charge under Section 121 IPC (waging war against State). In the second FIR of October 25, the Gujarat government had booked fresh cases of sedition under 124A and 121A. On December 1, the HC refused to interfere with the additional charg-es of 121A booked in the second FIR against Mr Patel and four others and the present appeal is dire-cted against this order.
Mr Kapil Sibal argued that the registration of 121A case was “witch hunting” and said the charges should be quashed and he should be released on bail.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi, however, justified the slapping of sedition charges and said the PAAS leader has been in the forefront for the past two months having organised massive, unimaginable crowds of over five lakh people in support of his agitation for including the Patel community in the OBCs. He argued, “It is a conspiracy against the state, conspiracy against the judiciary, it is a conspiracy against elected representatives and conspiracy against the people of the state. He has instigated people to kill policemen. In fact I am aggrieved. He is benefited.” Without passing any order, the bench posted the matter for further hearing on January 5.
