Agrees to furnish personal bail bond in defamation suit
In yet another U-turn, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) convener 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. The leader of the fledgling party was released from Tihar Jail on Tuesday evening after a city court ordered forthwith release of Kejriwal after he furnished the cash bond needed for bail.
While former Delhi Health Minister Satyendra Kumar Jain, MlA from Mangolpuri Rakhi Birla along with several AAP volunteers were eagerly waiting for Kejriwal’s arrival at Gate number 4 of Tihar Jail, he, however, was conspicuously released from a separate gate due to large crowds. “Arvind Kejriwal was released from Gate Number 1 of Tihar Jail at 8 pm on Tuesday,” said Sunil Gupta, PRO Tihar Prison.
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 `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.
Earlier in the day, the Delhi High Court had advised Kejriwal, who was lodged in Tihar Jail since May 21, to furnish the bail bond. The bench of Justices had said Kejriwal could raise whatever legal issues he wants to, once he comes out of jail and that he should not 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, the court observed.
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. 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.
Advocate Pinky Anand, appearing for Gadkari, opposed the habeas 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.