CC no.

44/1/14
Nitin Gadkari Vs. Arvind Kejriwal
21.05.2014
Present: Sh. Balendu Shekhar along with Ms. Pinki Anand and Sh.
Aayush Chandra Ld. Counsels for the complainant
Complainant is absent.
Accused Arvind Kejriwal in person along with Sh. Prashant
Bhushan, Sh. Rahul Mehra and Sh. Rishi, Adv.
An application has been moved seeking exemption from personal
appearance of the complainant Sh. Nitin Gadkari on the ground that he is busy
due to some unavoidable political commitments.
Since the complainant has been represented by a pleader and as his
personal attendance is not necessary today, hence this application seeking his
exemption from personal appearance is allowed for today only.
The accused has admitted having received the copy of complaint and
accompanying documents. As the offence u/s 500 IPC is bailable, therefore, the
accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond for
a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. The accused has been asked to furnish bail bonds.
The accused has stated that he shall not furnish bail bonds. He has stated
that this case is politically motivated and so he does not wish to seek bail. He
has however stated that he shall regularly attend the court.
The accused has been asked whether he is ready and willing to furnish a
personal bond without sureties undertaking that he shall regularly attend the
court and in default of attendance to forfeit to the Government a sum of Rs.
10,000/- only. The accused is adamant that he shall not even furnish his
personal bond undertaking as aforesaid. He has stated that he shall prefer to go
to Jail than seek bail or furnish bail bonds or his personal bond without surety.
He has stated that in all cases the procedure should be simplified and the
accused should be let off only on an oral undertaking.
Heard. Though, in fit cases where the accused is indigent or is unable to
finish sureties, the courts take a liberal interpretation of bail as covering own
bond without surety. This is in sync with the objective of social justice as
enshrined in the Constitution of India. The purpose of seeking bail
bonds/personal bond is only to secure the presence of accused during
investigation/trial. Though this is itself not a guarantee of presence of the
accused in the court but it certainly deters the accused from violating the
provision of bail and from fleeing from justice.
Section 436 Cr.P.C. reads when person other than a person accused of a
non bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in
charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is
prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the
proceeding before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail.
Provided that such officer of Court, if he or it thinks fit, (may, and shall, if such
person is indigent and is unable to furnish surety, instead of taking bail) from
such person, discharge him on his executing a bond without sureties for his
appearance.
Further, section 441 Cr.P.C. says before any person is released on bail or
released on his own bond, a bond for such sum of money as the police officer or
Court, as the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by such person,
and, when he is released on bail, by one or more sufficient sureties conditioned
that such person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond, and
shall continue so to attend until otherwise directed by the police officer or
Court, as the case may be.
Thus, the Code of criminal Procedure envisages only two situations- First
when a person furnishes his own bond with one or more sureties or second-
execution of own bond without sureties. The Code of Criminal Procedure
nowhere envisages release of a person on his own oral undertaking. This is not a
case where the accused is due to financial inability unable to furnish bail bonds.
The accused is just adamant to not furnish bail bonds or even a personal bond
for his appearance before the court. The procedure of the 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 other criminal cases where the courts insist on furnishing bail
bonds/personal bond to secure the presence of the accused persons. The accused
in the present case cannot seek preferential treatment to be let off only on an
oral undertaking in violation/divergence to the settled practice/procedure
regarding bail.
In these circumstances, as the accused has refused to furnish bail bonds 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 23.05.2014. Copy of this order be given dasti.


(GOMATI MANOCHA)
MM-02/New Delhi
21.05.2014




This is a true copy of the judgment as taken from the images of the order
published on http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arvind-kejriwal-refuses-to-
give-bail-bond-in-gadkari-defamation-case/1/362905.html which is live at
least until 22nd May 2014 16:00 hrs IST.

// True copy //
Midhun Kumar Allu