<p>In a relief to rebel Congress leader Hardik Patel, a city sessions court on Monday ordered to discharge him and 20 others from a criminal case registered in 2017 by a BJP councillor for ransacking his house during Patidar agitation. </p>.<p>The relief to the Gujarat Congress' Working President came after the Bhupendra Patel government approached the sessions court challenging a magisterial court order which had refused to withdraw the case against Hardik.</p>.<p>Additional Sessions judge Prashant N Raval allowed the state government's plea to withdraw the case under section 321 of the code of criminal procedure. The court held that in the past several criminal cases registered during Patidar agitation had been withdrawn. </p>.<p>The order states, "It doesn't appear to be a case of damage to public property. It is also not a serious offence." The order also held that nothing "malafide" had been found in withdrawing the case as the complainant never opposed the move in the trial court.</p>.<p>The order came on a plea moved by the state government after the magisterial court refused to withdraw the case saying that although the decision to take back the case was not against "public policy", the prosecution failed to establish that withdrawing the case was in "public interest" or in the "interest of justice." The court had also mentioned how the process to declare the accused proclaimed offenders was initiated and how they appeared before the Gujarat high court. Later, their discharge pleas were also rejected.</p>.<p>The state government quickly moved before the sessions court saying that these reasons had nothing to do with "withdrawal of prosecution" which, as held by the Supreme Court, is based on "public justice." The sessions judge while giving relief to Hardik Patel and 20 others held that in view of the apex court's order and keeping public justice in mind, social and political cases can also be withdrawn.</p>.<p>The FIR was registered at Ramol police station in March 2017 against Hardik and others on the charges of rioting, unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy. The complaint was lodged by Vastral Municipal Councillor, Paresh Patel, accusing them of vandalising his house. Earlier this year, Hardik Patel had threatened to launch agitation against the state government if criminal cases were not withdrawn against Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS) members. Days later, the state government announced to withdraw 10 cases including the Ramol one.</p>.<p>Hardik Patel, who has been distancing himself from the Congress, is facing nearly 30 criminal cases including two separate cases of seditions, registered in 2015 during the peak of quota agitation. </p>.<p>In one of the cases in Mehsana district's Visnagar, Hardik was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail for rioting and arson, which also occurred during the 2015 agitation. Because of the conviction, he couldn't contest the 2019 Lok sabha polls as Gujarat high court refused to grant a stay on conviction. In April, the Supreme Court granted him relief by staying the conviction.</p>
<p>In a relief to rebel Congress leader Hardik Patel, a city sessions court on Monday ordered to discharge him and 20 others from a criminal case registered in 2017 by a BJP councillor for ransacking his house during Patidar agitation. </p>.<p>The relief to the Gujarat Congress' Working President came after the Bhupendra Patel government approached the sessions court challenging a magisterial court order which had refused to withdraw the case against Hardik.</p>.<p>Additional Sessions judge Prashant N Raval allowed the state government's plea to withdraw the case under section 321 of the code of criminal procedure. The court held that in the past several criminal cases registered during Patidar agitation had been withdrawn. </p>.<p>The order states, "It doesn't appear to be a case of damage to public property. It is also not a serious offence." The order also held that nothing "malafide" had been found in withdrawing the case as the complainant never opposed the move in the trial court.</p>.<p>The order came on a plea moved by the state government after the magisterial court refused to withdraw the case saying that although the decision to take back the case was not against "public policy", the prosecution failed to establish that withdrawing the case was in "public interest" or in the "interest of justice." The court had also mentioned how the process to declare the accused proclaimed offenders was initiated and how they appeared before the Gujarat high court. Later, their discharge pleas were also rejected.</p>.<p>The state government quickly moved before the sessions court saying that these reasons had nothing to do with "withdrawal of prosecution" which, as held by the Supreme Court, is based on "public justice." The sessions judge while giving relief to Hardik Patel and 20 others held that in view of the apex court's order and keeping public justice in mind, social and political cases can also be withdrawn.</p>.<p>The FIR was registered at Ramol police station in March 2017 against Hardik and others on the charges of rioting, unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy. The complaint was lodged by Vastral Municipal Councillor, Paresh Patel, accusing them of vandalising his house. Earlier this year, Hardik Patel had threatened to launch agitation against the state government if criminal cases were not withdrawn against Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti (PAAS) members. Days later, the state government announced to withdraw 10 cases including the Ramol one.</p>.<p>Hardik Patel, who has been distancing himself from the Congress, is facing nearly 30 criminal cases including two separate cases of seditions, registered in 2015 during the peak of quota agitation. </p>.<p>In one of the cases in Mehsana district's Visnagar, Hardik was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail for rioting and arson, which also occurred during the 2015 agitation. Because of the conviction, he couldn't contest the 2019 Lok sabha polls as Gujarat high court refused to grant a stay on conviction. In April, the Supreme Court granted him relief by staying the conviction.</p>