Aam Aadmi Party leader Yogendra Yadav, who was taken into custody for violating prohibitory orders imposed around Tihar Jail protesting Arvind Kejriwal's arrest, was today granted bail by a Delhi court which refused to go into the legality of his arrest on the ground that the probe was at an initial stage.
Metropolitan Magistrate Ekta Gauba released Yadav on bail after he furnished a personal bond of Rs 5,000.
"In view of the fact that offence under section 188 (disobeying public servant's order) of the IPC is a bailable offence and in view of the fact that accused Yogendra Yadav has been produced for the first time before the magistrate within 24 hours and at this stage, the legality or illegality of the arrest could not be considered as it is the initial stage of the investigation and keeping in view the Section 436 CrPC and in the interest of justice, accused Yogendra Yadav is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs 5,000," the magistrate said.
Yadav was arrested yesterday outside Tihar Jail for violating prohibitory order while AAP supporters were protesting the arrest of Kejriwal who had refused to furnish bail bond in the court which had granted him bail in a criminal defamation complaint filed against him by BJP leader Nitin Gadkari.
Yadav was produced before the court today which rejected the plea to release him on an undertaking that he will appear before it whenever required.
Advocates Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Yadav, said that the offence under section 188 of the IPC was bailable and the accused should be released on a personal undertaking or he should be discharged under the provisions of CrPC.
The defence counsel argued that Yadav's arrest was illegal as there was no public announcement of the imposition of section 144 of the CrPC as required under the law.
The counsel also contended that Kejriwal was arrested at 4.30 pm yesterday and the present incident in this FIR is alleged to have occured at 4.45 pm in violation of prohibitory order under section 144 of the CrPC.
"This shows that there was no prohibition order passed till that time and the same could not be announced in public by that time and so there is no violation," they argued.
