E-Paper
Delhi HC junks PIL seeking Arvind Kejriwal's release on ‘extraordinary interim bail’, imposes ₹75,000 fine
Arvind Kejriwal is in custody by virtue of the court's orders, said Delhi HC, pulling up the petitioner, asking if he had "good attendance in law school."
The Delhi high court on Monday dismissed a plea seeking the release of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal on “extraordinary interim bail” in all criminal cases registered by the Enforcement Directorate and the State till the completion of his tenure.
The court also imposed ₹75,000 fine on the petitioner saying that the Aam Aadmi Party leader is in judicial custody by virtue of the orders of the court.
Why was Kejriwal's plea junked?
The court said the plea, filed by a fourth-year law student under the name of 'We the People of India', was not maintainable as courts in its writ jurisdiction cannot grant extraordinary interim bail in pending cases initiated against a person holding high office.
Read: Sunita Kejriwal at INDIA bloc rally: 'Dictatorship, plot to kill Arvind Kejriwal'
The plea claimed that Kejriwal’s safety is in danger since he is confined in Tihar Jail with hardcore criminals who are facing prosecution in cases such as rape, dacoity, murder and bomb blast.
Senior Advocate Rahul Mehra, appearing for Kejriwal, called the PIL 'completely impermissible' and ‘misguided’ and said the petitioner was making the court a political platform. Mehra further pointed out that the same bench had earlier too dismissed pleas seeking the removal of CM, following his arrest and the most recent one was dismissed with a cost of ₹50k.
Read: Empty chairs for Arvind Kejriwal, Hemant Soren at INDIA rally: 'Manifesting Ram Rajya'
The court pulled up the petitioner asking if he had "good attendance in law school."
"It seems he does not follow principles of law," Acting Chief Justice Manmohan said.
Dictating the order, the court said the petitioner's claim to be the custodian and representative of the people of India is devoid of any basis.
“It is even more strange that the petitioner has offered to extend personal bond in favour of Kejriwal and undertakes that Kejriwal will not influence witnesses,” the court said, adding that the petitioner holds no power of attorney for Kejriwal to make such statements or hold personal bonds.
With Bureau inputs
