The judge said furnishing a bail bond was a process of law and told Kejriwal that he was seeking different treatment.
"You are representing the Aam Aadmi Party. I request you to behave as an aam aadmi (common man)," the court said.
"This not a case where the accused, due to financial inability, is 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 court said.
The judge said the procedure of the court 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 differently than other criminal cases where the courts insist on furnishing bail bonds/personal bonds to secure the presence of the accused persons," the judge said.
"The accused in the present case cannot seek preferential treatment to be let off only on an oral undertaking in violation or divergence to the settled practice or procedure regarding bail."
