HC refuses to withdraw prosecution against BJP MLA, says prosecutor puppet in govt’s hand

Special public prosecutor Kamleshkumar Dave, handling the trial of the case before a magistrate court, had approached the Gujarat HC in July seeking withdrawal of prosecution in the case against 46 persons, including the MLA.

Observing that such an application is non-maintainable, the court noted in its verdict, “…the said learned Special Public Prosecutor is nothing but a sheer ‘puppet’ in the hands of the state government who has not kept his obligation towards the court and only with a view to please the superior authority, made such an application”.

“The said application appears to have been filed not in a good faith, in the interest of public policy and justice. Rather, it appears to have been filed purely with a political interest,” it added.

The court of Justice Niral Mehta, while rejecting the plea, noted that the court “could not find as to how withdrawal of criminal case would advance the cause of justice” and “how the withdrawal from prosecution would sub-serve the public interest.”

The court further observed that if the accused would not have been the political leader, such an application for withdrawal of prosecution would not have been filed.

In December 2007, a mob of around 300 persons had gathered outside the gate of Essar company at Khambhalia taluka for public agitation for the resolution of issues affecting public at large and local agriculturists, and during the said agitation, the mob had started stone pelting on the buses of the company resulting in injuries to employees travelling in the buses.

Police officers who were deployed there to maintain public peace and safety were also injured. An FIR was lodged against 46 persons, including Jadeja.

The prosecution reasoned that the agitation was in the public interest and for the purpose of protection of interest of the local agriculturists and thereby “withdrawal of such prosecution is in the larger public interest.”

In October 2020, the prosecution had submitted an application before the magistrate court seeking withdrawal of prosecution against all 46 accused, including Jadeja.

The application was rejected by the court taking into account the seriousness of the offence and also the “absence of independent application of mind” by the additional public prosecutor at the time. This is in light of the fact that the prosecutor had earlier in “no uncertain terms opined that the said case is not worth withdrawing.”

The court of Justice Niral Mehta noted that despite the prosecutor’s own negative opinion on the withdrawal of prosecution, “on the insistence of the higher authorities,” the prosecution had sought withdrawal of prosecution before the magisterial court.

“The accused cannot be allowed, on the basis of his subsequently acquired status of MLA, to claim distinguishable privilege than that of normal citizen,” the court observed.