)
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal will remain in judicial custody till June 6. On Friday, a court here extended his custody in a defamation case, after he refused to furnish a bond. Kejriwal, who has already spent two nights in Tihar Jail for not paying a personal bond of ~10,000 and a surety of the same amount to a Patiala House court, on Friday rejected a second demand for bond payment by the court.
The court chided Kejriwal for “legal illiteracy” and reiterated it was only following legal procedures. “I will only request you (Kejriwal’s lawyer) to challenge my order if you want. I have already made up my mind,” the judge was quoted as saying. “If other leaders of the party can furnish bonds to secure bail, why can’t Kejriwal do so?” he asked.
An AAP spokesperson said the party might approach a high court on this issue by Monday.
During the hearing on Friday, the judge said, “ Even educated people do not know about legal proceedings as to what bail and a bond are. Being in the position you (Kejriwal) were, I expect you to be sensible,” the judge added.
On Wednesday, Kejriwal was produced before the Patiala House court for “defaming” Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitin Gadkari as “India’s most corrupt politician”, in a list he had issued on January 31.
When the Magistrate had demanded a personal bond, Kejriwal had said that he was ready to give an undertaking to appear before the court but refused to furnish a bail bond on “principal grounds”.
This led to prompt protests by dozens of AAP volunteers, including senior leaders Yogendra Yadav, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh. Police arrested around 60 AAP volunteers, who later on took bail.
The party is planning a strategic meeting along with the volunteers to decide the course of action, senior leader Gopal Rai said.
The party had announced on Thursday that he will not hold any protests as it will go door-to-door for an awareness drive related to Kejriwal’s arrest.
The party’s defense and also of Kejriwal’s advocate Prashant Bhushan is that there were at least four precedents in the past where courts have accepted the undertakings given by Kejriwal in similar cases and did not insist on a bail bond. Also, according to the party, “there is no provision in law which makes it mandatory for a defendant against whom a complaint is filed in a defamation case to furnish a bail bond, particularly when he is ready and willing to be present in the court on the fixed date of hearing”.
Kejriwal has come under severe criticism and his actions have been termed as “drama” by the opposition parties.
