The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a petition filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar against the Delhi High Court order, which refused to grant him bail in the assault case of Rajya Sabha MP and Aam Aadmi Party leader Swati Maliwal.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice on the plea and directed that the charge sheet and the MLC be placed on record. It then listed the matter for further hearing on August 8 (whenever the Bench would sit in the same combination).
Appearing for Kumar, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that his cleint has been in custody for 75 days and the charge sheet has been filed (since after the Delhi High Court order).
He contended that Maliwal registered the FIR after three days of the incident, with a ‘friendly police,’ under a ‘friendly LG’. However, Bibhav’s FIR of the same day was not registered.
Singhvi further pointed out that Maliwal’s injuries were non-dangerous and simple in nature. He alleged that Maliwal went to the police station on the day of the incident but came back without lodging an FIR.
The Bench took objection to the allegation, noting that Maliwal’s call to emergency services (112) belied Singhvi’s submission that the case was concocted.
The Apex Court observed that bail was even granted to the murderers, and robbers, but the allegations in Maliwal’s case weighed heavily against Bibhav.
Refusing to read Maliwal’s application in the open court, the Bench noted that despite Maliwal telling Kumar to stop because of her particular physical condition, he continued to assault her. The Apex Court remarked that it seems power has got to the head of Kumar.
On the Bench’s enquiry whether Bibhav was Delhi CM’s Secretary or ex-Secretary on the date of the incident, Singhvi replied that he was the political secretary and used to handle appointments.
However, the top court of the country disagreed with the submission.
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 he 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 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.
The petitioner contended before the Apex Court 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).
The petitioner 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.
Kumar has also moved the Delhi High Court challenging his arrest. A notice has been issued to Delhi Police on this petition.