Delhi High court refused bail for Bibhav Kumar who is personal assistant to CM Arvind Kejriwal in Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal Assult Case.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta rejected Kumar’s bail application, stating that there were substantial reasons to deny the request. The court emphasized that Kumar, being the designated personal secretary to Kejriwal, wielded significant influence, which raised concerns about the possibility of him tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Kumar, who has been in judicial custody since his arrest on May 18, is accused of assaulting Maliwal on May 13 at Kejriwal’s official residence. The First Information Report (FIR) against him, filed on May 16, includes serious charges under the Indian Penal Code, such as criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide.
In his bail plea, Kumar argued that the allegations were baseless and that his continued detention was unwarranted since the investigation had been completed. However, the Delhi Police opposed the bail plea, presenting strong evidence and asserting that all legal procedures were meticulously followed during his arrest.
Senior advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the Delhi Police, detailed the sequence of events leading to Kumar’s arrest. He stated that the arrest was conducted following a thorough investigation, which included visiting the incident site, reviewing video evidence, and discovering that Kumar’s mobile phones had been wiped. Jain dismissed claims of a “hasty” arrest, noting that Kumar was detained only after confirming his presence at the scene and finding substantial evidence against him.
Also read: PM Modi Returns To India, Concludes His Two Nation Visit To Russia And Austria
This argument was in a petition to the high court which Kumar filed for a release stating that the arrest was premature and any right that he had was infringed. He claimed that the police have violated Section 41A of CrPC, which mandates the police to give a notice before arresting a person without a warrant. This provision is meant to check frivolous arrests as has been determined by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar case. The petition also pointed out that Kumar was arrested while civil and criminal litigations including a prayer under Section 41 A of CrPC which sought compliance to the Constitution and an anticipatory bail application that was pending. Secondly, his complaint of May 17 was allegedly not entertained.
Kumar sought compensation for what he termed an illegal arrest and called for disciplinary action against the officials involved.
