Bittu surrenders in Bathinda court, remanded in 5-day judicial custody
Thursday, 15/10/2015
http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx
BATHINDA: Congress member of Parliament (MP) from Ludhiana Ravneet Singh Bittu, who had been booked for rioting and other charges after a protest here on September 30, surrendered in the court of judicial magistrate Randeep Kumar on Wednesday. Vikramjit Singh Mofar, son of party MLA from Sardulgarh Ajit Inder Singh Mofar, also surrendered. The court remanded both into judicial custody for five days.
Ludhiana MP Ravneet Singh Bittu arrives at a court in Bathinda on Wednesday.
A case against Bittu, Vikramjit, Khushbaj Singh Jatana and Bhupinder Singh Gora had been registered at the civil lines police station under sections 148 (rioting), 149 (unlawful assembly), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from duty) and 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of duty) of the Indian Penal Code after a clash between protesting Congressmen and cops here.
The party had staged a protest over the inadequate compensation to cotton farmers whose crop had been damaged by the whitefly attack.
TO TAKE UP FARMERS’ ISSUES IN PARLIAMENT
Before his surrender, Bittu told the media that he would take up farmers’ issues in the coming session of Parliament and also stage a protest outside the House. He asked why the Narendra Modi government could not give a relief package for farmers of Punjab, even as a whopping package had been announced for Bihar with an eye on the assembly elections.
Earlier, Bittu, Vikramjit, Jatana and their supporters reached the civil lines police station and offered themselves for arrest, but the police refused. Then they went to the local court and surrendered. The judicial magistrate sent Bittu and Vikramjit into judicial custody till October 19.
Deputy superintendent of police (city-1) Davinder Singh said they had not arrested Bittu as the Lok Sabha speaker’s permission was a must to act against an MP.
