New Delhi, Aug 1 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday reprimanded Bibhav Kumar, an aide of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, on his behaviour with Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament Swati Maliwal who was allegedly assaulted by him at the CM’s residence two months ago.
Kumar had approached the Supreme Court seeking bail in the assault case.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan came down heavily on Kumar for his behaviour with a woman, asking if power “has gone into his head”.
The bench asked, “Is this the way, is this a private residence… it is the Chief Minister’s residence. You want to say as if a goon entered the residence and you wanted to protect… you have assaulted a young woman.”, the bench said.
At one point during the hearing, Justice Kant said, “He doesn’t seem ashamed of himself.”
Justice Kant said, “… we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here look at the FIR. She is crying about her physical condition. Did you have authority? If this kind of person cannot influence witnesses then who can?”
The matter will now cum up for hearing on August 7 as the Court issued notice to Delhi Police.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Kumar, said, that the trial court should have granted bail in this matter as there are many contradictions in Swati Maliwal’s statement about where she was hit.
Singhvi told the bench that on the first day, May 13, she went (to police) but did not file any complaint. Three days later she filed an FIR (First Information Report).
Singhvi pleaded that the FIR had been registered with a “friendly police under a friendly LG”.
Justice Kant asked Singhvi, what about the fact that she called 112? I think that belies your claim that she concocted.
“These are all your internal political affairs, we are not concerned with it,” Justice Kant said.
Justice Kant asked, “Is CM’s official house a private residence? Does it need this kind of rules? We are shocked, this is not about minor or major injuries.”
Singhvi, while pleading before the bench to grant bail to Kumar, said that the Chargesheet had already been filed on July 30. The MLC report described the nature of injuries as non-dangerous and simple, Singhvi said.
“Two bruises, one on the right cheek and one over the left leg… the incident occurred on May 13 and the FIR was registered on May 16, the story of the FIR is quite strange… she went to the police station on the first day and did not file the FIR…” Singhvi added.
The bench said, we normally grant bail, but look at the way the alleged incident took place. We don’t want to read in open court.
The bench commented, but does he (Kumar) think the power has gone into his head?
Justice Datta asked whether on the date of the incident Kumar was a secretary or ex-secretary?
Singhvi replied that he was the political secretary and handled all the appointments of the chief minister.
Justice Kant then said, “Not political secretary. You are a government employee.”
Singhvi told the court that all these questions could be put when the trial is going on but this is a matter where bail is being sought and added this is not a murder case.
Was anyone there in the drawing room to speak against him you think? He doesn’t seem ashamed of himself, Justice Kant said.
Singhvi said, “Lordships are treating the FIR as gospel. A friendly LG and police don’t register my complaint but only hers.”
Justice Kant said, “We are not on your internal and other politics. Going by criminal process and FIR.”
The court then issued a notice returnable on August 7.
The matter pertains to an FIR registered by Swati Maliwal against Bibhav Kumar that he (Kumar) assaulted her when she went to meet Kejriwal at his residence on May 13.
Maliwal in her written complaint in the police station alleged that Kumar assaulted her and slapped her at least 7-8 times while she screamed.
She pushed him away to protect herself, but he then pounced on her, brutally dragged her, and deliberately pulled her shirt up.
Kumar was arrested on May 18.He is in judicial custody till July 16 and faces charges of criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe.
He then approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail but his petition was dismissed because he is quite influential and the likelihood of his influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Kumar then filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Apex Court against the Delhi High Court order which had dismissed his bail saying that there was a possibility of his influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta of the Delhi High Court had on July 12, dismissed the bail petition of Kumar saying that the possibility of his tempering with the evidence cannot be ruled out.
