The Telegraph
 
CIMA Gallary

Kejriwal stumps court by refusing to give bail bond

New Delhi, May 21(PTI): Aam Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal on Wednesday refused to furnish a bail bond in connection with a criminal defamation complaint filed against him by Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitin Gadkari before a court here, prompting the court to ask him if is looking for “some exceptional treatment”.

Kejriwal, who appeared before the court in pursuance to the summons issued against him, told Metropolitan Magistrate Gomati Manocha that he was ready to give an undertaking that he will appear before the court but refused to furnish bail bond to secure bail.

During the hearing, the magistrate observed, “I completely agree but why he (Kejriwal) will not furnish bail bond? What is the problem? There is a procedure and why should we follow different procedure in this case.”

“I agree he will appear in the court but the procedure is that a person has to file bail bond. Are you looking for some exception treatment?” Manocha asked.

On January 31, Kejriwal had accused several politicians of being “corrupt” and had said AAP will field candidates against them in Lok Sabha polls.

Kejriwal, who also argued in the court, told the judge that he has not committed any heinous crime and added that he was not looking for any exceptional treatment.

”This is my principle that when I have not done anything wrong, I will not seek bail. I am ready to go to jail,” he said.

Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Mehra, who appeared for Kejriwal, told the magistrate that these cases are of political nature and, in line with the principles of the AAP, they will not furnish bail bond.

Bhushan also argued that there was no possibility that Kejriwal would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and filing of undertaking was correct.

Senior advocate Pinki Anand, who appeared for Gadkari, opposed the contentions of defence counsel, saying there was no procedure in law to furnish undertaking and law should not vary for anyone.

After hearing both parties, the court reserved its order for 4pm on the issue of filing of undertaking by Kejriwal.

The court had earlier directed Kejriwal to positively appear before it on Wednesday in the defamation case.

On February 28, the court had summoned Kejriwal as an accused in the criminal defamation complaint, observing that statements allegedly made by the AAP leader have the effect of ”harming the reputation” of the complainant.

The summon was issued against Kejriwal on a complaint in which Gadkari had alleged that he was defamed by Kejriwal, who had included his name in the party's list of “India's most corrupt”.

During the day's proceedings, the counsel appearing for Gadkari moved an application seeking exemption on behalf of the BJP leader. The court allowed the plea.

As soon as the hearing began, Bhushan said Kejriwal would give an undertaking that he would appear before the court but he would not furnish any bail bond.

Senior advocate Pinky Anand, however, opposed it saying law is equal for all and Kejriwal should furnish bail bond.

Advocate Mehra argued that they were not asking for any ”special treatment” and the procedures nowhere say that a person cannot file an undertaking.

At this juncture, the magistrate said, “This is not a state case. This is a complaint case. I have no problem if you give an undertaking. But why there should be a divergent view in this case only?”

”When you are representing AAP, we expect you to behave like an 'Aam Aadmi'. Let the procedure be same for every one. Is there a problem in furnishing bail bond?” the magistrate said.

The magistrate also observed, “what you (Kejriwal) are asking for is differential treatment.”

To this, Kejriwal said that this was basically a political case and he has not committed any crime.

”We are starting a new initiative (of filing undertaking). We are setting a precedence. I am not saying that give this treatment only to me. Give it to all,” the AAP leader said.

The magistrate, however, said this is a defamation complaint and procedures cannot be simplified in this case.

Gadkari's counsel argued that the court should pass an order on the issue.


 More stories in Front Page

  • Seal of Nitish on Manjhi ministry
  • Naveen Patnaik takes oath as chief minister for 4th term in Odisha
  • Tears at Temple we built
  • Takeaways from Modi's debut in Central Hall
  • In Gadkari defamation case, Kejriwal stumps court by refusing to give bail bond
  • American Center case: SC commutes death sentence of 2 convicts to death in jail
  • First stop Puri, then comes Raj Bhavan
  • Kejriwal apologises to people for resigning midway, says AAP to gear up for elections