On Thursday, 1st August, the Supreme Court questioned Bibhav Kumar, Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide over the assault of Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal, saying it was surprised by how the incident occurred at the Delhi chief minister’s residence. The statement came as the court issued a notice of Kumar’s bail application, setting it for a hearing on August 7th.
A bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that the issue is not whether Maliwal’s wounds are substantial or slight. “We are shocked at the manner in which it is done to somebody visiting the CM residence,” it stated, agreeing to hear the bail petition. Kumar approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court refused him bail on July 12th.
Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who defended Kumar, stated that Maliwal came to the chief minister’s residence and no one had gone to her house, prompting the bench to inquire whether the CM’s office was a private property.
“Does it need these kinds of rules? We have released on bail people who are charged with heinous offences. But see the way and manner the offence is done. What kind of power has gone into his head that she tells him to stop as she is having a particular physical condition, but he continues…It is inhuman. What kind of moral policing does he do. Is this kind of goon supposed to work at CM’s residence?” the court said, as per Times of India report.
The court will hear the case next on August 7th and assess the charge sheet. It sought a response from the Delhi Police to Kumar’s bail application while allowing the petitioner’s counsel to file the charge sheet.
Singhvi stated that the most serious allegation against Kumar is that he caused injury and that there are reasons for granting bail because he cannot interfere with evidence with the chargesheet already filed.
The bench responded by asking that if this type of individual cannot influence, who can? “If he can mislead people by calling the staff from outside, can anybody dare to speak against him?” The judges pondered if Kumar was a former chief minister’s aide or a government employee.
Singhvi claimed Kumar, a former government employee, was a political aide who made appointments for the CM. The Supreme Court asked why a former employee had more power at the CM’s residence than Maliwal. “The FIR [first information report] indicates you [Kumar] are an ex-private secretary. What authority did you have at the Chief Minister’s office that the victim did not? You want to make it appear as if a bad guy broke into the residence. And he isn’t even ashamed of his actions.”
Singhvi claimed Kumar was just requesting bail because he had been detained for 75 days. He stated that the event occurred on May 13th and Maliwal chose to register her complaint only three days later.
The bench asked what it meant if Maliwal called the police helpline 112 right away after the event. “This belies your story that subsequently she concocted allegations.” Singhvi claimed that the FIR was feasible due to “friendly” police and a “friendly” Lieutenant Governor, prompting the bench to rule that these were internal political concerns.
Kumar was charged on May 16th under the Indian Penal Code’s sections for criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide. Kumar claimed that the allegations were baseless and that his detention was unwarranted because the investigation had concluded. He claimed that his arrest was made in haste, violating his rights because the police did not provide him notice before arresting him without a warrant.
