Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Supreme Court Issues Notice On Bibhav Kumar's Bail Plea
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar against Delhi High Court's denial of bail in the Swati Maliwal assault case.The order was passed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, upon hearing Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared and argued for Bibhav. The matter has...
The Supreme Court today issued notice on a plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar against Delhi High Court's denial of bail in the Swati Maliwal assault case.
The order was passed by a bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, upon hearing Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared and argued for Bibhav. The matter has been listed for next Wednesday (whenever the bench would sit in same combination).
During the hearing, Singhvi argued on behalf of Bibhav that he has been in custody for 75 days and the chargesheet has been filed (since after the Delhi High Court order). He contended that Maliwal registered the FIR after 3 days of the incident, "with a friendly police, under a friendly LG", but Bibhav's FIR of the same day was not registered.
Relying on the MLC, Singhvi pointed out that the Maliwal's injuries were non-dangerous, simple in nature. It was also mentioned that she went to the police station on the day of the incident but came back without lodging an FIR.
The bench however took objection to the submission, asking Singhvi what Maliwal's call to emergency services (112) indicated. "The call belies your submission that the case was concocted", said Justice Kant.
It was also remarked by the bench that bail is even granted to murderers, robbers, etc., but the allegations in Maliwal's case weigh heavily against Bibhav. "We don't want to read in open court...but once she tells him to stop because of this particular physical condition...this man continues! What he thinks, power has gotten to his head?"
Justice Datta, on the other hand, enquired whether on the date of the incident, Bibhav was Delhi CM's Secretary or Ex-Secretary. To this, Singhvi reply, "he was the political secretary...used to handle appointments". Justice Kant, however, disagreed.
Be that as it may, the bench issued notice on the plea and asked that the chargesheet and MLC be placed on record.
It may be recalled that an FIR was registered against Kumar on the written complaint of Aam Aadmi Party's Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal, who alleged that Kumar assaulted her when she went to meet Kejriwal at his residence on May 13.
Following the complaint, Kumar was arrested on May 18. As per Delhi Police, he was non-co-operative during investigation and gave evasive answers to its questions. It was also alleged that he deliberately did not disclose the password of his mobile phone, which is an important piece of information in the probe to unearth the truth.
Initially, Kumar moved the trial court for bail, but was denied relief on May 27. His second regular bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court on June 7.
Aggrieved, Kumar approached the Delhi High Court, however, a bench presided by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected his bail plea, observing that though he happens to be only designated as a personal secretary to the Chief Minister, he yields considerable influence. The judge said that at the current stage, it could not be ruled out that witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with, in case Kumar is released on bail.
“Keeping in view the nature and gravity of accusation and apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, no grounds are made out for releasing the petitioner on bail, at this stage."
The High Court further opined that the events which unfolded after the incident, reflected that Maliwal was in a traumatized condition faced with the unprovoked brutal assault.
“Since the complainant herself is a dignified member of a political party, she had second thoughts to lodge the complaint, considering the powerful position of the petitioner. As such, despite mustering the courage to visit the police station on the same day and informing the SHO, complainant returned without lodging the FIR."
It added, “In the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may be preposterous at this stage to infer that petitioner has been falsely implicated and allegations have been concocted, since apparently the complainant had no motive to implicate the petitioner.”
Against the Delhi High Court order, Kumar has now approached the Supreme Court.
As per Kumar, his is a classic case of abuse of criminal machinery and subterfuge investigation, as he and Maliwal both have lodged complaints against each other but it is only Maliwal's case which is being investigated. This, he says, is because Maliwal is an influential person (being Member of Parliament). It is further alleged that he was threatened of dire consequences to the extent of implication in false and frivolous cases and that Maliwal's FIR emanates from a nefarious design.
In related news, Kumar has also moved the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest. Notice has been issued to Delhi Police on this petition.
Case Title: BIBHAV KUMAR Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 9817/2024