Delhi HC Imposes ₹75,000 Fine on Law Student: Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s “extraordinary interim bail” petition, filed by a law student, was dismissed on April 22 by the Delhi High Court.
The high court found the petitioner, who claimed to represent the people of India, lacked “locus standi” to take the case on behalf of Mr. Kejriwal, who was arrested in connection with the now-scrapped Delhi excise policy.
Enforcement Directorate arrested Kejriwal on March 21. He is being held in judicial custody until April 23.
As part of a larger conspiracy, Arvind Kejriwal is being denied his medicines: Atishi
It was stated in the petition by the petitioner, a law student, that the Chief Minister needs to be physically present in order to fulfill his responsibilities. In order to take quick decisions on all issues and to pass orders for the welfare of the public, Kejriwal must be present in his office.
In its opening remarks, the bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora asked the petitioner, “who are you to exercise any veto power (to release Mr Kejriwal). You are a member of the United Nations.”
Also Read: Australian Woman Banned From Uber App Over Her Name: Company Apologises
The bench told the petitioner, who despite warning him about an impending cost kept pressing his case, “He (Mr Kejriwal) does not want your assistance. Leave it at that. This gentleman is in judicial custody by the court’s order,” the bench said.
In his appearance for the chief minister, senior advocate Rahul Mehra described the petition as “an ambush litigation” and asked how such a petition could be filed by anyone.
“If Kejriwal want to move the court with any plea, he will do so. Who is this person to come and file such litigation. This is a completely motivated litigation. This petitioner also claims to have a regional political party – Nyaya Satta Party. This is completely politically motivated litigation,” Mr Mehra said.
During the hearing, the bench told the petitioner, “What you are doing is very strange. You are giving some undertaking on behalf of Respondent number 5 (Mr Kejriwal) that he will not influence witnesses. What are you doing? Do you have some exaggerated notion of yourself?”
“First you say, you have veto power. Then you give undertaking on behalf of Respondent number 5. How can you say all these,” the bench said adding, “we will dismiss (the plea) with cost”.
Respondent number 5 is in judicial custody pursuant to judicial orders, which have not been challenged in this petition, the judge explained.
Also Read: Florida Ranks Among Most Dangerous States for Online Dating, Study Reveals
According to the bench, the petitioner’s claim to be the custodian and representative of India’s people is a fanciful claim with no basis in reality.
“It is even more strange that the petitioner has offered to extend a personal bond in favour of Respondent number 5 and has undertaken that Respondent number 5 will not influence witnesses or try to destroy evidence to try to flee from justice,” it added.
While dismissing the plea, the bench noted that the petitioner is a stranger to the criminal proceedings against respondent number 5.
As a result of his confinement with hardcore criminals, Mr. Kejriwal’s safety and security are in danger.
Also Read: Oppo K12 Launch Date and Design Revealed: Check Out Specs
