Varun gets reprieve as SC extends parole till May 14

A Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan said that the conditions imposed on Varun while granting interim bail on April 16 will continue.

During the brief hearing,state government counsel and senior advocate Harish Salve alleged that Varun was undermining the order of the apex court which has imposed certain conditions on him while granting parole.

“Certain conditions were imposed but the young man does not bother about the Supreme Court order,” he said,accusing him of not informing the District Magistrate of Pilibhit about his whereabouts between April 16 and 20 and April 23 and 26 when he was in Uttar Pradesh.

However,Mukul Rohatgi,Varun’s counsel,refuted the allegation saying that the BJP leader was in Delhi during the period and it was not necessary for him to inform about his whereabouts to the Pilibhit District Magistrate.

Rohatgi said that whenever Varun visited Uttar Pradesh for campaigning,the administration was informed in advance. Countering the submission,Salve said the Uttar Pradesh government has evidence to substantiate its allegation.

When Rohatgi said that Varun will reply to the allegations made in the affidavit filed by Uttar Pradesh Home Secretary Javed Ahmed,Salve pointed out that the BJP leader’s representation to the Central Government against the invocation of NSA was rejected.

Rohatgi alleged that everything against Varun was politically motivated which was objected by Salve who accused him of indulging in rhetoric.

Salve said that going by the conduct of Varun,it appears that the idea of parole for him means that he can do whatever he likes without realising that the Central government has rejected his representation.

Rohatgi alleged that both the Central and State Governments have one agenda to keep Varun in jail. The BJP leader had approached the apex court after he was arrested under the NSA for allegedly making inflammatory statements and causing a breach of public order when he went to Pilibhit to surrender on March 28 in a case registered against him for allegedly making “inflammatory and communal speech” during his campaigning there.