The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the trial in a 2007 Arms Act case against former Samajwadi Party MP Bal Kumar Patel, who alleged that the case was politically motivated and aimed at tarnishing his reputation.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta issued notice and halted proceedings pending before the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Raebareli. The court was hearing a plea filed by Patel challenging the April 7 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had refused to quash the criminal case against him.

Appearing for Patel, advocate Rohit A. Sthalekar argued that the criminal proceedings were a result of political vendetta. “The petitioner is a well-respected former MP from Mirzapur, and several frivolous complaints were filed against him during his political career, in which he was eventually exonerated,” the plea stated.

During the hearing, Justice Nath inquired about Patel’s political affiliation. When informed he was associated with the Samajwadi Party, the court proceeded to stay the trial.

The case relates to an FIR registered on June 12, 2007, under various provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, for allegedly procuring a firearm license using forged documents and possessing ammunition in excess of permissible limits. A chargesheet was later filed.

Patel maintained that there was no misuse of the licensed weapon, and in 2012, the district magistrate had reinstated his firearm license after ruling out any wrongdoing.

His plea also referred to a government order dated August 6, 2014, which had authorised the public prosecutor to withdraw the prosecution in public interest. However, the trial court rejected the withdrawal application in October 2021, citing a 2021 Supreme Court judgment that requires High Court permission to withdraw cases involving MPs and MLAs.

The Allahabad High Court had dismissed Patel’s plea, observing that the state government had shown no intent to pursue withdrawal, and that Patel could not compel the state to act.

The former MP argued that despite a clear government order and support from the public prosecutor, the state failed to approach the High Court in time to seek withdrawal of the case