The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected the petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar, challenging his arrest in the alleged assault case of Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna rejected the petition, which contended that Kumar’s arrest was violative of the Supreme Court rulings in the Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar case and in the Amandeep Singh Johar vs State of NCT of Delhi case.
The petition further sought compensation for ‘illegal’ arrest.
Kumar also sought departmental action in terms of the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar against the erring officials, who were allegedly involved in the decision-making of Kumar’s arrest.
An FIR was registered against Kumar on the written complaint of 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 Kumar deliberately did not disclose the password of his mobile phone, which was an important piece of information in the probe to unearth the truth.
Kumar moved the trial court for bail, which dismissed his application on May 27. His second regular bail plea was rejected by the Sessions Court on June 7.
Kumar then approached the Delhi High Court. A Bench presided by Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta last month rejected his bail plea, observing that though he happened to be only designated as a personal secretary to the Chief Minister, he yielded considerable influence.
Justice Mendiratta said that at the current stage, it could not be ruled out that the witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with, in case Kumar was released on bail.
It said keeping in view the nature and gravity of accusation and apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, no grounds were 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.
The Bench observed that since the complainant herself was 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, the complainant returned without lodging the FIR.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may be preposterous at this stage to infer that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the allegations have been concocted, since apparently the complainant had no motive to implicate the petitioner, noted the High Court.
Kumar then moved the Supreme Court, contending that his was a classic case of abuse of criminal machinery and subterfuge investigation, as he and Maliwal both have lodged complaints against each other, but only Maliwal’s case was being investigated because she was an influential person (being Member of Parliament).
He further alleged that he was threatened with dire consequences to the extent of implication in false and frivolous cases. Maliwal’s FIR emanated from a nefarious design, he claimed.
The Apex Court issued a notice on his petition on August 1.