New Delhi, Apr 25 (PTI) Social activist Medha Patkar was arrested here on Friday, two days after a court issued a non-bailable warrant against her for not furnishing probation bonds in a 24-year-old defamation case, an official said.
The case was filed by Delhi Lieutenant Governor Vinai Kumar Saxena.
A police team reached Patkar’s residence in southeast Delhi’s Nizamuddin area in the morning and took her into custody, they said.
“We have executed the NBW and Medha Patkar has been arrested,” Deputy Commissioner of Police (South East) Ravi Kumar Singh said.
The arrest comes after Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vishal Singh on April 8 granted Patkar a one-year probation, observing that the offence did not merit imprisonment and cited her contributions as the leader of the Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) and recipient of several awards.
According to the order, Patkar was directed to furnish probation bonds by April 23. However, with no compliance on record, the court issued a non-bailable warrant against her.
Following a non-bailable warrant issued by a Delhi court for flouting its order, Patkar was arrested and produced before a sessions court on Friday.
Following this, the judge orally passed a direction of her release subject to furnishing of the bonds and depositing the compensation amount after her counsel assured to comply with the previous direction.
Patkar’s counsel told additional sessions judge Vipin Kharb, “NBWs (non-bailable warrants) have been executed. The probation order stands true as we stand before the court. I will furnish probation bonds in the second half today. I have been picked up from the railway station on my way to the court.”
Patkar was produced in the court at around 12 pm before the link court as the judge who originally heard her appeal and passed the NBW order was on leave.
The court also observed that her plea seeking adjournment was “frivolous”, “mischievous’ and filed with the intent to “hoodwink” it. It sternly warned Patkar that non-compliance with the conditions of the sentencing order would force it to “reconsider the benevolent sentence.”
The court then said instead of appearing before the court to comply with the order on sentence dated April 8, Patkar remained absent and “deliberately failed to comply with the order” on sentence and avail the benefit of probation subject to furnishing of the compensation amount.
“The intention of the convict is apparent that she is deliberately violating the court order; she is avoiding appearing before the court and also avoiding accepting the terms of the sentence passed against her. There is no order of suspension of sentence passed by this Court on April 8,” the judge added.
