The Delhi High Court had approved hearing the plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar on May 31, challenging his arrest in the assault case ensconced by AAP MP Swati Maliwal.
Bibhav Kumar had moved the Delhi High Court, seeking direction to express his arrest by Delhi Police as illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The plea also sought an order that the petitioner be paid appropriate compensation for his illegal arrest, in deliberate and blatant violation of the provisions of law.
Bibhav was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18, after being accused of assaulting Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal.
The plea noted, “Departmental action should be initiated against the unknown erring officials who were involved in the decision-making, namely the arrest of the petitioner.”
Swati Maliwal assault case: Delhi HC to hear Bibhav Kumar’s plea challenging his arrest on May 31
Read @ANI Story | https://t.co/VM0mlGb5Hk#swatimaliwalcase #BibhavKumar pic.twitter.com/gEzU7erkGF
— ANI Digital (@ani_digital) May 29, 2024
Recently, the trial court dismissed Bibhav’s bail petition and stated that the investigation was at an initial stage and influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence could not be ruled out.
The trial Court further expressed, “The investigation was still at the nascent stage, and the apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence could not be ruled out. Keeping in view the allegations made against the applicant, at this stage, no ground for bail was made out.”
The investigating agency had also conveyed that the applicant had formatted his mobile phone and had not provided the password for opening his mobile phone. The CCTV footage collected from the Hon’ble CM’s camp office was also stated to be blank, the court noted in the order.
ALSO READ: Delhi Records Highest-Ever Temperature at 52.3 Degrees Celsius
The court stated that Bibhav Kumar was joined in the probe, but as per the investigating officer, he did not cooperate in the investigation, and he was arrested to prevent him from tampering with the crucial evidence.
During the arguments, the Counsellor for the complainant argued that the victim was the sitting MP of the Aam Aadmi Party, and earlier also, she had gone to meet the CM, and she could not be termed a trespasser.
KNOW MORE: Kejriwal Challenges Rss Over Modi’s ‘Sent By God’ Claim
It was also argued that the volume of the injuries was such that they were present even after four days when the medical examination was done. He contended that the complainant had an association with the CM for the last nine years, and she was brutally assaulted.
