New Delhi: Believed to have an ace up his sleeve at all times, BJP leader and the petitioner in the National Herald case Subramanian Swamy refused to be bogged down by the Patiala House court's decision to grant bail to Sonia and Rahul Gandhi today.
Known for his wit and one-upmanship, Swamy tried to turn the tide against the Gandhis once again, who he claimed would be behind bars after the next hearing once he leads the evidence before the court.
“Now I will lead evidence in February. I wanted to do it right away, but they said no, please give us till February,” Swamy said as he went on to narrate proceedings in the hearing with the customary smile that he usually dons as if up to some mischief.
“I said to Sibal that if you say PLEASE, I will agree to adjournment. So he said ‘please have it on February 20', and I said ‘okay',” Swamy told reporters. He also gave a patient and detailed account of the happenings in court.
“They (the accused) were put in a corner where the accused are supposed to stand. They were not allowed to sit,” Swamy said, adding that only Motilal Vora, was allowed to sit upon seeking permission of the court.
“I thought they will not take bail, which is what they have been announcing but they produced a readymade bail application and put it before the judge, who then asked who was going to be the surety,” Swamy said in an apparent bid to target the Congress' change in legal strategy over the days in the matter.
“I dont think Manmohan Singh was asked to be anybody's surety. Maybe they are not so sure of him,” he went on to say.
Swamy also took a dig at Rahul Gandhi when asked why he sought imposition of travel restrictions over the accused, something that the court did not accept. “These people have a habit of disappearing,” he said.
“Sometimes they disappear for 57 days without notice… the trial will get delayed.”
Swamy further denied Congress' allegations of political vendetta and him being a “mask” for Narendra Modi, saying he had “never spoken to the Prime Minister formally in his office on this question”.
“If the facts are strong, it doesn't matter whether the person who has brought it to the notice of the court has done it out of vendetta or not,” Swamy added.
