New Delhi: Changing his stand, jailed AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal on Tuesday accepted the suggestion of the Delhi High Court to furnish a personal bond for getting bail in a criminal defamation case filed against him by BJP leader Nitin Gadkari.
Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and advocate Prashant Bhushan, who met Kejriwal in Tihar Jail in the afternoon to discuss the court’s suggestion, told a bench of justices Kailash Gambhir and Sunita Gupta that he has agreed to the proposal and has signed a bond of Rs 10,000.
The bench asked Kejriwal’s lawyers to present the bond to the magistrate concerned or duty magistrate today itself, adding that furnishing of the same would be subject to final outcome of the legal issues raised by him.
The legal issue raised by Kejriwal, in his petition seeking his immediate release from the jail, is whether bail bond is necessary in summons case when accused appears and is accompanied by a lawyer.
Read Also: Arvind Kejriwal sent to jail; Section 144 imposed outside Tihar as AAP workers clash with police
The court also issued notice to Gadkari and the Delhi government and sought their responses on Kejriwal’s plea seeking his immediate release on the ground that his detention was illegal.
It fixed the matter for final disposal on July 31 when it will hear arguments on the issue of maintainability of Kejriwal’s plea.
Earlier in the day, the court advised him to furnish a bond and said he can raise whatever legal issues he wants to once he comes out of jail.
The bench allowed Kejriwal’s lawyers to meet and apprise him about the court’s suggestion to furnish bail bond which would be subject to final outcome of the legal issues raised by him. It also advised him not to make it a prestige issue.
It also questioned how a habeas corpus applies against a judicial order. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or detainee before the court to determine if the person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful.
Kejriwal, in his plea filed through advocate Rohit Kumar Singh, has alleged that the magisterial order sending him to judicial custody was “illegal” as it was based on a
“completely wrong premise of law”.
His lawyers argued before the high court that Kejriwal’s detention is “totally illegal” as only a person in custody is required to furnish bail bond.
They also argued that Kejriwal had appeared in pursuance to court summons and was accompanied by a lawyer and, therefore, there was no need for him to furnish bail,
especially when he was willing to give an undertaking.
They also said the requirement of pre-trial bail in the current situation is an antiquated practice which is absent in socially developed and forward nations like the US.
When accused is present in court with counsel in pursuance to its summons then there is no authority to direct him to furnish bail bond, they said.
Advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for Gadkari, opposed the habeus corpus plea saying such a petition was not maintainable against judicial orders.
She also argued that under the law every person is required to furnish bail bond in such cases to ensure his presence.
She also objected to Kejriwal’s conduct in jail by having written an open letter questioning the magisterial orders sending him to judicial custody.
Kejriwal’s petition challenged the May 21 and 23 orders of the magisterial court remanding him in judicial custody for not furnishing bail bond in the criminal defamation complaint filed by Gadkari, saying the same was not mandatory and he should have been allowed to give a written undertaking instead.
A former Delhi Chief Minister, Kejriwal was sent to judicial custody by a magistrate on May 21 for two days. On May 23, his custody was extended by 14 days till June 6 after
he refused to furnish a bail bond when he was granted bail in the case.
