NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday rejected a bail application filed by chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar in connection with the alleged assault case involving Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal.
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar being taken from Tis Hazari Court, in New Delhi on Friday (ANI)Additional sessions judge Sushil Anuj Tyagi’s decision comes a day before Bibhav Kumar’s four-day judicial custody ends.
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said Kumar will appeal against the decision in the high court, news agency PTI said.
He also argued that a trespassing case was made out against Bibhav Kumar because he had been removed as a private secretary to the chief minister.
Advocate Madhav Khurana, appearing for Maliwal, argued that Kumar had previously been accused of assaulting a public officer.
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday rejected a bail application filed by chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar in connection with the alleged assault case involving Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal. Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar being taken from Tis Hazari Court, in New Delhi on Friday (ANI)
Additional sessions judge Sushil Anuj Tyagi’s decision comes a day before Bibhav Kumar’s four-day judicial custody ends. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) said Kumar will appeal against the decision in the high court, news agency PTI said.
Unlock exclusive access to the latest news on India's general elections, only on the HT App. Download Now! Download Now!
Tyagi pronounced the order after hearing senior lawyer N. Hariharan who appeared for Bibhav Kumar, additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava and Swati Maliwal who appeared in person before the judge at Tis Hazari courts to oppose Kumar’s bail application, claiming that she and her family’s safety would be at risk if he is released on bail. Maliwal told the court that Bibhav Kumar was so powerful that his arrest on May 18 brought Delhi’s chief minister out on the streets to protest, a reference to the AAP protest on May 19 which Kejriwal joined.
Hariharan sought bail for Bibhav Kumar arguing that a case was registered on concocted charges against him on May 16, days after the alleged incident of May 13 by Swati Maliwal and that the police arrested him without any evidence.
In her first information report (FIR), Swati Maliwal alleged that Bihav Kumar slapped her seven to eight times without any provocation at the CM’s residence on May 13, when she went to meet Kejriwal. He slapped her, kicked her in the chest and pelvis, and deliberately pulled up her shirt, Maliwal alleged.
Hariharan said there was an unexplained delay in filing the complaint and getting her medical examination done though she went to the Civil Lines police station on the day of the incident May 13.
Hariharan also underscored that it was Maliwal who violated the law by visiting the chief minister’s residence without a prior appointment, forcing her way in flouting the protocol, but no action was taken by the Delhi police on Bibhav Kumar’s complaint
“She was supposed to wait outside but what does she do … she disregards everything and barges in…..Who called her and when was she called, there is no evidence to that”, he said.
Hariharan also stressed that the police booked him under section 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) only to make it difficult to get bail though the provision is not backed by the medical report.
“In the MLC (medico-legal case summary), there are two simple injuries on non-vital parts so how is Section 308 made out? There is no injury on the head, stomach, or pelvis area. At best this is the case of 323 (simple hurt), which is not invoked as it is a bailable offence”, he added.
He also submitted that section 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe) of the IPC is also not made out against Kumar
“The allegations levelled do not show that there was an intent to disrobe her. All that can be seen is that during the scuffle the shirt was torn. It is an incidental situation that has happened”, the senior counsel claimed.
Addl public prosecutor Atul Srivastava contested the argument that the police went overboard to book him under stringent provisions, reasoning that the intention of causing death was not necessary to establish an offence under section 308 but even knowledge that the act may cause death is enough.
“You are beating a lady who was alone, and she was dragged and her head hit the centre table. Will this not cause death? You are beating a lady in such a manner that her kurti flew, the way you are beating her also shows 354B and not only this 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC can also be made out”, Srivastava said.
He also argued that a trespassing case was made out against Bibhav Kumar because he had been removed as a private secretary to the chief minister. Srivastava added that the letter written by the section officer about the Maliwal incident indicates that she was escorted by security officers to the waiting area, which does not amount to trespassing.
APP Srivastava explained the delay in filing the FIR due to the trauma. Advocate Madhav Khurana, appearing for Maliwal, argued that Kumar had previously been accused of assaulting a public officer. “Only on triple test, the fact of the evidence being tampered with, the bail application is liable to be dismissed”, he argued.
