Criminal Court rejects Arisman's second request for bail
Play
The Criminal Court yesterday rejected red-shirt leader Arisman Pongruangrong's second request for bail on grounds that he might flee again.
Arisman, who turned himself in to face terrorism charges, also faces charges of defaming former PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and a senior police officer.
The red-shirt leader has been held in remand since December 7 pending trial on charges related to terrorism in connection with last year’s political turmoil. He fled to Cambodia once the red-shirt rally at Ratchaprasong intersection was brought to an end on May 19 last year.
His escape and the serious nature of the charges were two critical factors behind the rejection of his first request for bail, the court said.
In his second plea for bail, Arisman told the court that he had to flee abroad and wait until this month to surrender because people had warned him of attempts on his life.
Arisman vowed in court that he would not attempt to escape or lead any rallies again.
However, the court ruled yesterday that just Arisman and his wife, Rapipan Ruangrong, promising that he would not jump bail was not enough.
In a separate ruling, the Criminal Court said yesterday that Arisman and Pheu Thai party-list MP Jatuporn Promphan had not defamed former deputy premier Suthep Thaugsuban in comments made to the press in 2009.
Suthep had alleged that Jatuporn had defamed him at a press conference on December 4, 2009, by saying that the then-deputy PM was planning to bring in some 5,000 immigrants from neighbouring countries to pass off as red-shirt protesters.
Jatuporn said Suthep was planning to have the foreigners destroy His Majesty’s images on Rajdamnoen Road to prompt public anger against the red shirts.
The court ruled that Jatuporn had justifiable grounds to express that fear. In the verdict, it said that Jatuporn and Suthep were political opponents and a senior city police officer had indeed testified that there were some foreigners among the demonstrators and that they might have been behind certain situations during the protest. Hence, the court said, Jatuporn was correct in expressing concerns to protect his side.
