delhi-hc-seeks-police-response-on-bibhav-bail-plea

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the city police on the bail plea of Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in a case involving the alleged assault on AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. Justice Amit Sharma's vacation bench issued a notice on the bail plea, requesting a status report from the Delhi Police.

 

Kumar, who is currently in judicial custody, allegedly assaulted Maliwal on May 13 at Kejriwal's official residence. He was arrested on May 18. An FIR was registered against him on May 16, citing various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including charges of criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe, and attempt to commit culpable homicide.

 

Kumar's counsel argued that his continued custody was unnecessary and requested a hearing in June, emphasising his right to personal liberty. The counsel pointed out that there were no injuries in the alleged assault and questioned the need for further investigation into a bodily offence.

 

However, the Delhi Police's senior lawyer stated that the investigation was ongoing and highlighted pending forensic analysis of DVRs and mobile phones related to the case. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the first week of July and has asked the police to update the investigation status.

 

Earlier, the Tis Hazari court denied Kumar bail on June 7, citing the "grave and serious" nature of the charges and the risk of witness tampering. His initial bail plea was dismissed on May 27, with the court noting that there was no indication of premeditation by Maliwal in filing the FIR and that her allegations could not be dismissed outright.

 

In his plea to the high court, Kumar argued that the trial court did not consider that his further custody was unnecessary since all evidence had been collected and witness statements recorded. He contended that keeping him in custody served no useful purpose.

 

Kumar's petition also claimed that the case represented an abuse of the criminal justice system. He pointed out that while both he and Maliwal had filed complaints against each other, only her complaint was being investigated.

 

The petition suggested that Maliwal, being an influential Rajya Sabha member, had her complaint prioritised while his was ignored.

 

The petition further alleged that Maliwal's accusations were fabricated, arguing that she realised her actions were recorded on CCTV and thus left the premises, threatening Kumar and the staff with dire consequences.

 

Kumar also challenged his arrest, calling it illegal and a violation of legal provisions, including the requirement for a notice of appearance before a police officer under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

 

As the investigation continues, the high court's decision on Kumar's bail plea and his petition challenging his arrest will be closely watched, given the high-profile nature of the case and the serious allegations involved.