The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear a petition seeking immediate release of Arvind Kejriwal, who was sent to jail after he refused to furnish bail bond in a criminal defamation complaint against him.
The petition submitted that he has been “illegally sent to judicial custody” on a wrong premise of law.
The plea was mentioned by advocate Prashant Bhushan before a bench of justices B D Ahmed and S Mridul which said it would be listed tomorrow for hearing before the court concerned.
The petition challenged the May 21 and 23 orders of a magisterial court remanding Kejriwal in judicial custody for not furnishing bail bond in the criminal defamation complaint filed by BJP leader Nitin Gadkari, saying the same was not mandatory and he should have been allowed to give a written undertaking instead.
The habeas corpus plea, filed on behalf of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, has made Gadkari and the Delhi government as parties. 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.
- Soon You Could Get Plastic Currency Notes: Find Out More
- Ranveer Singh and Vaani Kapoor Starrer Befikre Gets A Thumbs Up
- Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response Over Various Issues Regarding Demonetisation
- Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar Writes To West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee
- Bigg Boss 10 December 8 Review: Swami Om Feels Cheated, lashes Out At Gaurav For Jail Punishment
- South Korean President Park Geun-Hye Impeached Over Corruption Scandal
- Former Air Chief SP Tyagi Arrested In VVIP Chopper Scam
- After Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi, Liquor Baron Vijay Mallya’s Twitter Account Hacked
- Find Out What PM Narendra Modi Told Cabinet Over Demonetisation Decision
- Home Minister Rajnath Singh Assures Safety Of All Tourists Stranded On Havelock Island
- Government To Waive Service Tax On Debit, Credit Card Transactions Of Up To Rs 2,000
- President Pranab Mukherjee Criticises Parliament Disruptions Over Demonetisation
- Pakistan International Airlines Flight Carrying Over 40 Passenger On Board Crashes
- Shah Rukh Khan On Raees Clash With Kaabil: It’s Impossible To Have A Solo Release In India
- US-President Elect Donald Trump Named TIME’s Person Of The Year 2016
The petition contended that the orders were passed by the magistrate “on the assumption that when an accused appears on his own in a summon case on receiving a summoning order, which allows him to appear even through his pleader, he must furnish
a bail bond and if he fails to do so, he would necessarily be sent to judicial custody.”
It submitted that this understanding of the law is “totally erroneous.”
The magistrate had refused to review its May 21 order remanding Kejriwal in judicial custody for not furnishing the bail bond and had asked him to approach the higher court, challenging the decision.
Kejriwal was earlier summoned as an accused by the court in the defamation complaint in which Gadkari had alleged that he was defamed by the AAP leader, who had included his name in the party’s list of “India’s most corrupt”.
Kejriwal’s counsel had earlier argued before the trial court that in such cases where accused has not been arrested, there was no requirement to furnish a bail bond. Gadkari’s advocate had opposed the contention, saying criminal courts cannot review their order.
The magistrate had said Kejriwal was told to give a bond only and it was a legal procedure to furnish bond for bail.
On May 21, the court had granted bail to Kejriwal in the defamation complaint, saying the offence under Section 500 of IPC was bailable and had asked him to furnish a personal bond.
He, however, was taken into custody after he refused to give the bail bond, saying the case was politically motivated and he does not wish to seek bail. He had said that he was ready to give an undertaking that he would appear in the court whenever required.
The court had on February 28 summoned Kejriwal as an accused in the case, observing that statements allegedly made by the AAP leader have the effect of “harming the reputation” of the complainant.