The Supreme Court expressed concern over the conduct of Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in the alleged assault case involving Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal. The court’s remarks reflected shock at how the incident unfolded at the chief minister’s residence. The court has issued a notice regarding Kumar’s bail plea and scheduled a hearing for August 7.
Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that their concern is not solely about the severity of Maliwal’s injuries but about the manner in which the assault occurred at the chief minister’s residence.
“We are shocked at how it happened to someone visiting the CM’s residence,” they commented, while agreeing to consider Kumar’s bail request. Kumar approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court denied his bail application on July 12.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kumar, argued that Maliwal had visited the chief minister’s residence and that Kumar’s conduct was inappropriate, but not uncommon in high-profile cases.
The Bench questioned if the CM’s office was treated as a private residence and whether the rules applied there were necessary.
“We have granted bail to those charged with serious offences. But look at the way the offence was committed. What kind of power did Kumar feel he had that led him to continue despite Maliwal’s request?” the Bench inquired.
The court will examine the charge sheet filed in the case on August 7 and requested a response from Delhi Police regarding Kumar’s bail plea. The bench allowed Kumar’s lawyers to submit the charge sheet for review.
Singhvi argued that the charges against Kumar were primarily related to causing injury and that with the charge sheet already filed, there was no risk of evidence tampering. However, the bench questioned whether Kumar, given his influence, could potentially intimidate or mislead others.
Kumar, a former government servant and political assistant to the chief minister, is accused of criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide. Kumar maintains that the allegations are false and that his arrest was hasty and violated his rights as the police did not issue a notice before his arrest.
Singhvi also noted that the FIR was filed three days after the incident and suggested that it was influenced by a “friendly” police force and Lieutenant Governor, which the Bench described as internal political matters.
The Bench expressed skepticism about Kumar’s claims and emphasized the need for a thorough review of the case, including the immediate reporting of the incident by Maliwal.
