Defamation is an bailable offence, this implies that if a person has committed an offence of criminal defamation and has been arrested by the police he can apply to the concerned authorities for grant of bail. It is his right to be realised on bail.
is granted to the accused, a surety gives a guarantee to the Court that the accused will appear in the Court as and when required. Moreover, a sum of money is to be deposited to ensure his appearance before the Court, which otherwise stands forfeit.
Now all that is as per law, there's no denial to that. If you get the point, the challenge was against the practice of sending person to Jail if one fails to furnish a Bail Bond
in summons proceedings or private complaint cases. Please note, this was a case where person is to appear before the court whenever required not like a bailable offence where he is arrested and then give bail amount to be released. Keriwal offered an undertaking (which is of-course not in the law), which was denied and he was sent to jail for not furnishing the amount. This also made sense as he already appeared in the court and bail was not needed for next hearing.
Calling it in “outdated concept,” Shanti Bhushan prayed for relief to litigants sent to jail for not furnishing a bail bond even after they appeared before the courts, which was the intention of the law.
This in one very important issue of public importance, and by giving the bail Bond
this issue would never be raised.
Another important to note is, bail bond is not a rule but is an option. Kejriwal opted for the second (Jail), and its not a contempt of court. We're the AAM Aadmi, and out life is compromise only and thus expect everybody to do the same, thats the reason nobody stands up and when one stands up against all the odds, we (Aam Aadmi) pull him down saying 'Aaisa hi chalta hai'.
The Court will now hear the matter on merits. Lakhs of people face harassment and the court’s time is wasted. Hopefully now it will be decided and resolved in favour of the people.
Kejriwal's counsel argued that his detention is "totally illegal" as only a person in custody is required to furnish bail bond. The counsel argued that Kejriwal had appeared in pursuance to summons of the court and was accompanied by a lawyer and, therefore, there was no need for him to furnish bail bond, especially when he was willing to give an undertaking. They said the requirement of pre-trial bail in the current situation is an antiquated practice which is absent in socially developed and forward nations like the US. When the accused was present in court with counsel in pursuance to its summons, then there was no need to direct him to furnish bail bond, the counsel argued.
So why did he agree to furnish the bail bond ultimatelyIf there's a law, it has a background but you simply can't generalize it and because there's a law it doesn't mean that you can't question it. It simply doesn't mean being above the law or considering for special treatment.
It was after Delhi HC acknowledged the issue and advised kejriwal to furnish the bail bond and allowed him to pursue his challenge against the order of a lower court that sent him to jail on 21 May for refusing to furnish bail.
Kejriwal is pursuing the challenge, and time will tell whether he will be able to bring some changes in the judicial practices.
Did Kejriwal ever furnish the bail bond or it was a propaganda to take a mileage...
It seems to be a high picthed drama only, if we believe the media houses, but I fail to understand why these never captured any headlines in the past. One act of media appreciation becomes a drama with time. I could find the following articles by googling...
15 Jun 2011: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Noida-cops-arrest-RTI-activist/articleshow/7294093.cms
You may also try to look at the following articles and the kinds of words being used...
Kejriwal Swallows Pride:
Kejriwal backtracks, now agrees to furnish bail bond
HC ne diya bail bond bharne ka aadesh...