Expressing doubts over his “abduction” claim, the Gujarat High Court today came down heavily on the Patel quota spearhead Hardik Patel and warned him and his lawyer of contempt action, stating no one can take the court “for a ride”.
A bench of Justices M R Shah and K J Thaker, hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Hardik’s aide, said no opinion is made on it as prima facie the court is not satisfied with the allegations.
“Prima facie it appears that it is required (by Hardik) to substantiate the allegations (made by him that he was abducted). Prima facie, we are not satisfied with the allegations,” the court said.
“If somebody tries to mislead the court proceedings, it cannot be tolerated or permitted. Nobody can take court proceeding for a ride. Looking at the seriousness of matter it is adjourned till September 29,” said the court.
“We express no opinion at present whether the corpus (Hardik) was under illegal confinement of police or not. If there is any need of any FIR (against Hardik), police may proceed as per law,” it said in the order.
Hardik, who is spearheading the Patel community agitation for quota under OBC category, surfaced yesterday after his mysterious disapperance the previous night. He had claimed that he was abducted by “a person looking like a cop.”
Earlier, his two aides Dinesh Patel and Ketan Patel had filed a habeas corpus plea through their lawyer B M Mangukia before the High Court alleging that the Patel leader was illegally confined by police.
The High Court after hearing the plea early morning had asked the state government to find Hardik. Mangukia produced him before the High Court today.
During the hearing, the High Court observed that the Patel leader and his advocate “misused” the court proceedings and warned them with contempt of court proceedings.
“Even before filing the habeas corpus petition, you went to the press, why suo motu cognisance for contempt of court should not be taken against you,” the High Court asked Mangukia.
“You have put the entire state machinery and the court at stake for one person. We have our own doubts about credentials of petitioners,” the bench observed.
( Source – PTI )