Chief Minister’s aide Bibhav Kumar has been remanded to 14-day judicial custody by Delhi’s Tis Hazari court in connection with the alleged assault on Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal.
The court order came on Friday after Kumar’s three-day police custody ended. He was initially arrested by Delhi Police on May 18. Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal set Kumar’s next court appearance for June 14.
The Delhi Police sought a 14-day judicial custody for Kumar, arguing that it was necessary to prevent him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava emphasised the need for further investigation and claimed that judicial custody would ensure a thorough probe. Defence counsels Rajat Bhardwaj and Karan Sharma contested the request, stating that Kumar had no capacity to interfere with the investigation or tamper with evidence.
During the proceedings, APP Srivastava pointed out that Kumar had allegedly formatted his mobile phone and refused to share the password with the investigators.
The prosecution also presented interim forensic evidence indicating Kumar’s presence near the DVR, suggesting potential tampering with the CCTV footage. According to the prosecution, the complainant stated that Kumar recorded the incident on video and was seen with two mobile phones.
The defence countered by highlighting procedural lapses. They noted the delay between the alleged incident on May 13 and the filing of the FIR on May 16, followed by Kumar’s arrest on May 18.
Defence counsel Rajiv Mohan argued that there was no immediate complaint, no medical examination conducted within the first three days, and that the evidence seemed to be manufactured to suit the prosecution’s narrative.
Mohan further argued that there was no concrete evidence to prove that Kumar had formatted his mobile phone or that the phone contained any incriminating evidence.
He emphasised that the accused could not be forced to share his phone’s password and that the police had no grounds to hold him longer in custody. Mohan also stated that no weapon was involved in the incident and that the police could retrieve any necessary data from the phone without needing Kumar's continued detention.
The defence questioned the necessity of further custody, stating that the police had no material to confront Kumar with and that the forensic interim report did not provide definitive proof of tampering. The defence also brought up the lack of investigation into why the complainant visited the Chief Minister’s residence.
APP Srivastava refuted the defence’s claims by reiterating the possibility of tampering with the CCTV footage and the existence of two mobile phones. He stressed the importance of a detailed investigation to uncover the truth.
The court ultimately decided in favour of the prosecution, extending Kumar’s judicial custody until June 14 to allow for further investigation. The case remains under close scrutiny as both sides continue to present their arguments and evidence in the coming weeks.
Follow us
