Arvind Kejriwal detained in Nitin Gadkari defamation case
Moneylife Digital Team 21 May 2014
The Magistrate, in her three-page order, also observed that the procedure of courts cannot be 'thrown to the winds' at the whims and fancies of the litigants
Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former chief minister of Delhi Arvind Kejriwal was on Wednesday arrested and sent to Tihar Jail till 23rd May by a Delhi Court after he refused to furnish bail bond in a criminal defamation case. The case against Kejriwal was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Nitin Gadkari.
“Take him into custody,” Metropolitan Magistrate Gomati Manocha ordered after the Kejriwal repeatedly refused to furnish a personal bail bond of R10,000 and a surety of like amount.
“In these circumstances as the accused has refused to furnish bail bond or even personal bond without surety, this Court is constrained to take the accused into custody. Let the accused be sent to judicial custody and be produced before the court on 23rd May,” the magistrate said.
Kejriwal was 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”.
After the court pronounced its order, Kejriwal was taken into lock up inside the court premises amid tight security and later taken to Tihar Jail.
The magistrate, in her three-page order, also observed that the procedure of courts cannot be “thrown to the winds” at the whims and fancies of the litigants.
“The court cannot act as a mute spectator when a particular litigant intentionally seeks to violate the procedure established by law. This case cannot be dealt with any differently than any other criminal cases where the courts insist on furnishing bail bond/ personal bond to secure the presence of the accused persons. The accused in the present case cannot seek differential treatment to be let off only on an oral undertaking in violation/ divergence to the settled practice/ procedure regarding bail,” the court said.
The court, in its order, also said that this was not a case where the accused is unable to furnish bail bond due to financial inability.
“The accused is just adamant to not furnish bail bond or even a personal bond for his appearance before the court,” it said.
The court reserved its order in the morning after hearing arguments from the counsel for Kejriwal and Gadkari on the issue of filing of undertaking and not furnishing bond to secure bail.
Kejriwal said he was ready to give an undertaking that he will appear before the court but refused to furnish bail bond to secure bail.
During the argument earlier in the day, the court asked if the AAP leader was looking for “some exceptional treatment”.
The magistrate observed, “I completely agree but why he (Kejriwal) will not furnish bail bond. What is the problem? There is a procedure and why should we follow different procedure in this case. I agree he will appear in the court but the procedure is that a person has to file bail bond. Are you looking for some exceptional treatment?”
Kejriwal, who also argued in the court, told the judge that he has not committed any heinous crime and added that he was not looking for any exceptional treatment.
“This is my principle that when I have not done anything wrong, I will not seek bail. I am ready to go to jail,” he said.
Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rahul Mehra, who appeared for Kejriwal, told the magistrate that these cases are of political nature and as per the principle of AAP, they will not furnish bail bond.
Bhushan also argued that there was no possibility that Kejriwal would tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses and filing of undertaking was correct.
Senior advocate Pinki Anand, who appeared for Gadkari, opposed the contentions of defence counsel, saying there was no procedure in law to furnish undertaking and law should not vary for anyone.
The court had earlier directed Kejriwal to positively appear before it in the matter.
The court on 28th February had summoned Kejriwal as an accused in the criminal defamation complaint observing that statements allegedly made by the AAP leader have the effect of “harming the reputation” of the complainant.
During the day’s proceedings, the court also allowed the application of Gadkari’s counsel seeking exemption from personal appearance for today on behalf of the BJP leader. 
Prof Rajagopalan
8 years ago

A well prompted yet poorly acted drama

The very announcement that the Indian National Congress was not going to support Kejriwal in forming a government made it very clear that it had a hidden agenda! Enacting a drama thereafter was most foolish and unnecessary! Perhaps the brains behind the actors and the script writers were making themselves too ridiculous. The entire episode was obviously masterminded by the top most leaders of the Congress party. The whole country cannot be fooled for ever! Alas! When a woman stoops, there is no limit!!

Poor Kejriwal, he is trying to save himself from the utter disgrace - anybody can guess and even pardon him. But what about the great and miserable fall of the topmost leaders i.e. mother and son.


How true is the proverb “What is there in a name?” Sanjay Jha and Sanjaya of Mahabharata are poles apart.

8 years ago
Since i didnot find author's name let MLD team respond to my query because i am those who practice law don't touch any professional service without fee. i am of the opinion Courts need not be always right and rather they thrive on confusion. AAP should expose the dark under belly of broken windows in Indian Judicial system.

In courts there is no attendance register for witness to mark their presence.

Courts don't use registered posts/e mails to inform hearing dates.

Courts allot hearing dates to more than 100 cases for witness to depose when commen sense tell not less than half an hour will be consumed if presiding judges record depositions even in a single case that means ideally not more than 12 cases should listed for hearing under a judge on any given day.

So Arvind Kejriwal should fight this case and ensure the MM is taken to task for her zeal to enforce something which is no where in law books.

i welcome credible/indisputable clarification on the above points from any lawyer including Pinky Anand and even the MM because it is broken windows like the above which unnecessarily prolongs litigation and crook lawyers who earn their livelihood because of anarchy in indian justice delivery system.
Replied to TIHARwale comment 8 years ago
Dear respected TIHARwale,

Please let us know "the something" which is there in law book ?


Replied to Dev comment 8 years ago
Please use this link.

go to pg 25-26. this full documents tell us my erstwhile neighbours Kani, A.Raaja etc
8 years ago

filing of undertaking?

Mr. Bhushan, are you a lawyer?

Free Helpline
Legal Credit