Supreme Court Grants Bail To Kejriwal's PA Bibhav Kumar In Swati Maliwal Assault Case

The Supreme Court on Monday (September 2) granted bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Personal Assistant Bibhav Kumar in the Swati Maliwal assault case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that there are more than 51 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution, and hence, the conclusion of the trial will take some time. Also, the petitioner has been under custody for over 100 days. Since the chargesheet has already been filed, his release will not cause any prejudice to the investigation which is already complete, the bench noted.

"Mr. ASG, chargesheet has been filed. He has been under custody for over 100 days. And as per the medical report, the injuries are two bruises which are minor in nature. This is a case for bail. You should not be opposing," Justice Bhuyan told Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, who was representing the Delhi Police.

ASG Raju said in response that there are witnesses who are under the influence of the petitioner and after they are examined, he can be released on bail. Since it was a case of crime against women and the CCTV footages were tampered with, it was not appropriate to release him on bail, the ASG argued.

Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singvhi, for Kumar, submitted that since the injuries are simple, the invocation of the offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder) was not justified. He added that the witnesses were the officials of the Delhi police itself and hence there was no scope for intimidating or influencing them.

The bench did not accept the ASG's suggestion to defer the consideration of bail till the examination of private witnesses was complete. To address the concerns regarding the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence, the bench said that appropriate conditions could be imposed.

Accordingly, the petitioner's bail was made subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioner shall not be restored to the position of Personal Secretary of the Delhi Chief Minister or be given any other official assignment in the CM's office;

2. The petitioner shall not enter the residence of the Delhi CM till the private vulnerable witnesses are examined;

3. The prosecution should examine the private vulnerable witnesses first; and

4. The petitioner, or members of the political party he is affiliated with, shall not make any public comments on the merits of the case.

The bench said that the bail will be subject to other conditions to be imposed by the trial court.

Saying that the petitioner has been a close associate of Kejriwal for over twenty years, Singhvi objected to the condition that the petitioner should not visit Kejriwal's residence. However, the bench said that it was not a condition in perpetuity and was a temporary measure. When Singhvi requested that a specific time limit be fixed, the bench directed that the trial court should examine the private witnesses as soon as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta (also appearing for Kumar), submitted that the petitioner has a case that it was an unfair investigation. However, the bench said that it was not commenting on the merits of the case.

Background

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.

Against the Delhi High Court order, Kumar 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.

Counsels for Bibhav Kumar: Senior Advocates Dr AM Singhvi and Mukta Gupta; Advocates-on-Record Vivek Jain and Karan Sharma

Counsels for respondent-Delhi police: ASG SV Raju

Case Title: BIBHAV KUMAR Versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 9817/2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 646

Click Here To Read/Download Order