SURAT -- A local court today remanded the Patel quota agitation leader Hardik Patel in judicial custody while rejecting further remand application of the police in connection with the case of sedition filed against him for allegedly advising a youth to kill policemen.
Additional city civil judge H A Pandya rejected the police's application seeking his further remand of three days.
The court asked the police to produce Hardik before it after a fortnight — the stipulated time to produce an accused person before the court.
Hardik, the 22-year-old fiery leader of Patel community's agitation for reservations, had allegedly advised a local youth from the community to kill policemen rather than committing suicide earlier this month.
"If you have so much courage... then go and kill a couple of policemen. Patels never commit suicide," Hardik allegedly told Vipul Desai, who had announced that he would commit suicide in support of the agitation.
Following this, police filed a case under section 124(A) (charge of sedition) of the Indian Penal Code at Amroli police station here and he was arrested on October 19.
Public prosecutor Babita Budhani pressed for further police interrogation, while Yashvant Singhvada, Hardik's lawyer, said the police had already interrogated his client for three days, which was enough.
Meanwhile, the Gujarat High Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on October 27 on Hardik Patel's plea to set aside the grave charge of sedition in the FIR filed by Surat police.
Justice J B Pardiwala, who heard his petition, said today, "Hearing concluded, the pronouncement of judgement of the case on Tuesday."
During the hearing today, prosecutor Mitesh Amin submitted that Hardik's advice to Desai should not be seen in isolation but it should be considered in the context of attacks on police and burning of police vehicles in the aftermath of August 25 rally addressed by him in Ahmedabad.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, Amin said the police is a state agency, and therefore Hardik's advice amounted to sedition (creating disaffection/hatred about the state).
But Hardik's lawyer B M Mangukiya said considering police as "state" is "expansive interpretation" of the definition.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Pardiwala said that he will decide the plea on whether offence was committed or not as it was mentioned in the FIR.
![]()
Like Us On Facebook |
![]()
Follow Us On Twitter |
![]()
Contact HuffPost India
Additional city civil judge H A Pandya rejected the police's application seeking his further remand of three days.
The court asked the police to produce Hardik before it after a fortnight — the stipulated time to produce an accused person before the court.
Hardik, the 22-year-old fiery leader of Patel community's agitation for reservations, had allegedly advised a local youth from the community to kill policemen rather than committing suicide earlier this month.
"If you have so much courage... then go and kill a couple of policemen. Patels never commit suicide," Hardik allegedly told Vipul Desai, who had announced that he would commit suicide in support of the agitation.
Following this, police filed a case under section 124(A) (charge of sedition) of the Indian Penal Code at Amroli police station here and he was arrested on October 19.
Public prosecutor Babita Budhani pressed for further police interrogation, while Yashvant Singhvada, Hardik's lawyer, said the police had already interrogated his client for three days, which was enough.
Meanwhile, the Gujarat High Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on October 27 on Hardik Patel's plea to set aside the grave charge of sedition in the FIR filed by Surat police.
Justice J B Pardiwala, who heard his petition, said today, "Hearing concluded, the pronouncement of judgement of the case on Tuesday."
During the hearing today, prosecutor Mitesh Amin submitted that Hardik's advice to Desai should not be seen in isolation but it should be considered in the context of attacks on police and burning of police vehicles in the aftermath of August 25 rally addressed by him in Ahmedabad.
Citing Supreme Court rulings, Amin said the police is a state agency, and therefore Hardik's advice amounted to sedition (creating disaffection/hatred about the state).
But Hardik's lawyer B M Mangukiya said considering police as "state" is "expansive interpretation" of the definition.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Pardiwala said that he will decide the plea on whether offence was committed or not as it was mentioned in the FIR.
Like Us On Facebook | 
Follow Us On Twitter | 
Contact HuffPost India