New Delhi: Arvind Kejriwal has once again sent to a fourteen days judicial custody as he again refused to sign the bail bond for his release.
Meanwhile his Aam Aadmi Party has fully endorses his stand and termed it as the principled stand.AAP has endorses the steps taken by its national convenor and former Delhi chief minister, Arvind Kejriwal, of not accepting the condition of furnishing a bail bond in a case of defamation filed against him by former BJP President, Mr Nitin Gadkari.
The AAP does not agree with the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who has sent Kejriwal to judicial custody in the Tihar Jail, and the party has decided to challenge this erroneous order in higher courts.
Kejriwal’s fight against corruption requires wholehearted support of the citizens, since this evil needs to be completely eradicated for the country’s betterment and the AAP will take this anti-corruption battle to every corner of the country.
The AAP is of the firm opinion that Kejriwal’s case poses a serious question before the country that is it a crime to speak out against corruption and expose it ? It is shocking that Mr Gadkari, who had to resign from the post of BJP President after his corrupt deals surfaced in 2012, is now likely to become a minister at the centre and Kejriwal, who exposed corruption, has been sent to jail.
Kejriwal’s fight is not merely confined to a legal question of whether an individual summoned in a case of criminal defamation should be subjected to furnishing a bail bond, but it is for the rights of thousands of poor and helpless people languishing in jails due to their inability to furnish such bonds.
The issue raised by Kejriwal poses a serious questionmark on the country’s legal system that whether people who cannot furnish surety bonds will be allowed to suffer in jails merely on technical grounds, even if they have committed no crime.
In the present case also, Kejriwal and his legal team were ready to submit an undertaking for being present in all dates of hearing, but the court unfortunately did not accept it.
The AAP’s view is that there is no need for personal appearance of the defendant in such cases and he can be represented by his lawyers, unless his attendance is compulsory for recording his statement or any other related development.
Post a Comment