Explained: The 2017 rioting case against Hardik Patel

On March 20, 2017, an FIR was filed on a complaint from Vastral BJP councillor Paresh Patel, naming Patel and 16 others as accused. The councillor alleged that Hardik along with 60-70 others had unlawfully assembled, rioted, trespassed and launched attacks inside his Vastral residential compound. Paresh had further alleged that the nameplate of his house was broken and the mob had burnt the BJP flag and the nameplate, and that the mob had verbally abused and threatened to kill Paresh. The accused were charged with offences punishable under IPC 120B (criminal conspiracy), 142, 143, 149 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 435 (mischief by fire), 452 (trespass), 294 (a), 506(1), the case was committed to the Ahmedabad magistrate court in December 2017, with 19 named as accused, including Patidar leader Hardik Patel.

Why did the government seek withdrawal of the case?

While former Gujarat chief minister Anandiben Patel in 2016 had assured withdrawal of about 246 cases against Patidars resulting from the 2015 Patidar agitation, the assurance was put on paper only last month. In February, Hardik had threatened to launch a state-wide agitation if the state government did not withdraw the pending cases against Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS) members, adding that Patidar youths would stage dharna outside houses of Patidar community MPs and MLAs of the BJP if they do not support the demand of dropping criminal cases. In March this year, a day before Hardik’s deadline for launching the agitation the Gujarat government filed applications for withdrawal of 10 criminal cases of Ahmedabad city against around 40 Patidar members for unlawful assembly and rioting from before the Ahmedabad magistrate court and sessions court. Nine of these cases (eight before sessions and one before magistrate) stand withdrawn as on date, following court’s order allowing the state’s applications for withdrawal. The latest case that the sessions court permitted to be withdrawn under provisions of CrPC section 321 being on April 11 which involved seven accused charged for offences of rioting and unlawful assembly under IPC and under provisions of the Prevention of Damage To Public Property Act. The 2017 Ramol case remains the only case where the state’s plea for withdrawal of the case has been rejected.

What did the court say while rejecting the state’s plea?

As per additional public prosecutor at Ahmedabad magistrate court DM Raval, the court had primarily reasoned that no public interest would be served if the case is withdrawn and that the state had not justified as to how public interest will be served by withdrawal of this case. While rejecting the state’s application, the court also sought the presence of the accused for framing of charges on May 2. Hardik faces 28 cases in all, of which two are under the sedition law, all related to the 2015 quota agitation violence. The Supreme Court recently stayed his conviction in a case of rioting lodged in Visnagar of Mehsana district during the agitation.

What next?

According to the additional public prosecutor at Ahmedabad magistrate court DM Raval, the state is in the process of filing an appeal against the magisterial court’s rejection, primarily on the ground that the magisterial court has erred in rejecting the state’s application for withdrawal of the case.