7ad0caa42c4498bc391c45a95b693b1e

High Court hearing in Arvind Kejriwal’s matter

By on May 28, 2014

Arvind Kejriwal had so far refused to furnish a personal bail bond on the principled issue that common people should not be subjected to harassment on technical grounds in courts of law in petty cases.

Kejriwal on Tuesday accepted the proposal of the hon’ble Delhi High Court to furnish a personal bail bond for his release from the Tihar Jail, and the court has made it clear that the issue of whether such bonds are a mandatory requirement, will be subject to the final outcome of his petition, listed for hearing on July 31.

arvind kejriwal at jail

In his petition filed in the High Court, Kejriwal has raised the issue of whether it is correct to seek bail bonds and sureties from people who are summoned by courts on complaints filed in cases like that of criminal defamation. This question will be settled by the High Court, when it will deliver its verdict on Kejriwal’s petition.

According to the AAP, the unfortunate practice being followed by courts in petty criminal matters of mandatorily seeking bonds and sureties from those who are summoned on complaints filed by aggrieved parties is discriminatory, particularly when there is no apprehension of the summoned person not being present in courts on dates of hearing.

AAP is of the firm view that there is no provision in criminal law of seeking personal bonds and personal attendance of the accused in criminal cases where they can be represented by their lawyers and particularly when every detail about them is known.

Such a mechanical approach being followed by courts is leading to numerous hardships for the common man and it is precisely for such practices that millions of innocent people are suffering in jails due to their inability to furnish bail bonds.

AAP also feels that such unnecessary technical requirements are also consuming a lot of precious time of the courts across the country and need to be done away with. These issues should be the primary focus of judicial reforms in the country.

It has been reported in a section of the media that Kejriwal could have furnished the personal bond on May 21 itself in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate instead of going to the jail, in this case of criminal defamation filed against him by the former BJP President, Mr Nitin Gadkari.

AAP would like to make it clear that by preferring jail over bail, Kejriwal has raised an important issue concerning the common man that whether a mere filing of a complaint against an individual in any court should lead to harassment against him ?

By taking the matter to the High Court, Kejriwal has ensured that a clear position of law will emerge on this issue concerning millions of people of the country.   This would not have been possible had Kejriwal quietly accepted the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.