'Kejriwal bail-bond argument holds no legal merit'

A senior advocate says that it's explicitly written in law that accused have to furnish a bail bond and surety in case of a bailable offence

Legal experts find no merit in Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) chief Arvind Kejriwal’s displeasure over a city court demanding he furnish a bail bond. “It is explicitly written in law that accused have to furnish a bail bond and surety in case of a bailable offence,” said Ramesh Gupta, senior advocate and ex-chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi. “Kejriwal should not use this forum as political platform. His arguments don’t hold any legal merit. Bond is just an undertaking. He was summoned only as accused.”

On Wednesday, Patiala House court had granted bail to Kejriwal in a defamation case. The court had asked Kejriwal to furnish a personal bond of Rs 10,000, with a surety of the amount.

But Kejriwal refused. After this, he was sent to judicial custody for two days, later extended to 14 days. The AAP chief argued he wasn’t a convict and assured the court he would appear for all hearings on the case.

Kejriwal’s decision not to furnish a bail bond is based on the advice of his legal counsels Shanti Bhushan and Prashant Bhushan. “We will approach the high court. It is only in exceptional cases, in which there is apprehension the person or accused will not appear before the court,” Prashant Bhushan told Business Standard.

He termed the court’s move “totally wrong”.

Bhushan’s colleagues, however, feel differently. “There is no merit whatsoever in Kejriwal’s argument. The court asks for a guarantee; it does not mean you are convicted. When the court feels the accusation made is credible, it needs an assurance that the accused attend the court and face trial. This is a system followed across the globe,” said senior Supreme Court lawyer K T S Tulsi.

Kejriwal argued in the past, he had given undertakings to the court in at least three cases, without giving a bail bond. His submission was rejected by magistrate Gomati Manocha.

Supreme Court lawyer R K Anand said the court sought a bond in case it found some evidence after recording the statement of a witness. “In this case, the court recorded the statement of the witness and after some evidence was found, it summoned Kejriwal and released him on bail, as this was a bailable offence. But it asked for a bond to guarantee his appearance in court. So, before summoning, there was some evidence,” he said.

The AAP will move a high court regarding the matter next week. The party is planning to distribute copies of a letter written by Kejriwal to every household in Delhi, to apprise people of the party’s decision and the charges their chief had levied against Bharatiya Janata Party leader Nitin Gadkari, against which the defamation case was filed.