The Delhi High Court is scheduled to pass an order on July 1, 2024, on the maintainability ground of a plea moved by Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar seeking direction to declare his arrest by Delhi Police as illegal.
- Advertisement -
Bibhav Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18, in connection with a FIR registered by Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal assault case.
- Advertisement -
The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma after hearing the arguments at length, reserved the order on maintainability ground on May 31, 2024.
Appearing for Bibhav Kumar, Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that, “I (Bibhav Kumar) put an anticipatory bail, while around 4:00-4:30 it is being heard, I am arrested around 4:15. If the arrest is happening in such a fashion then the court must intervene. My fundamental right to be arrested in such a fashion was exploited and hence, I am here. You flouted the 41A procedure”.
Read more: Swati Maliwal alleges rape and death threats, blames AAP, YouTuber Dhruv Rathee
- Advertisement -
However, Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for Delhi Police and stated that their petition is not maintainable. The accused argued the violation of guidelines of arrest not being followed before the trial court and a separate application was moved for the same on that Magistrate comes to a conclusion that reasons for emergent arrest were mentioned and hence, because, on May 20th an order was passed and is not mentioned here and the same shall be taken seriously.
This order is capable of being revised, he can file a revision application and there is a 90 days period for that…but they have skipped this step and directly approached here, said Sanjay Jain appeared for Delhi Police.
- Advertisement -
Bibhav through his plea also sought appropriate compensation for his alleged illegal arrest, in deliberate and blatant violation of the provisions of law.
- Advertisement -
The Departmental Action must be initiated against the unknown erring officials, who were involved in the decision making viz. the arrest of the Petitioner, stated the plea.
Recently Delhi High Court’s vacation Judge had sought Delhi Police response over his bail plea challenging trial court order which had dismissed his bail plea.
Earlier, the trial court has dismissed Bibhav bail petition and stated that said that the investigation is at an initial stage and influencing of witnesses and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out.
Trial Court further said, “The investigation is still at the nascent stage and the apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the allegations made against the applicant, at this stage, no ground for bail is made out.”
” The allegations raised by the victim have to be taken on their face value and cannot be swiped away. The mere delay in registering the FIR would not have much impact on the case as the injuries are apparent in the MLC after four days. There seems to be no pre- meditation on the part of the victim as if it would have been so, then the FIR would have been registered on the same day,” said the court.
The applicant was present at the CM’s house even after his employment has been terminated, it further noted.
The investigating agency has also reported that the applicant has formatted his mobile phone and has not provided the password for opening his mobile phone. The CCTV footage collected from the Hon’ble CM’s camp office is also stated to be blank, the court noted in the order.
The judge said that it has come on record that the complainant was medically examined on 16.05.2024 at AIIMS Hospital. Her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Her version as mentioned in the complaint finds corroboration from the MLC and her statement recorded under section 164 of the Cr.PC.
The court stated that the applicant (Bibhav Kumar) was joined in the investigation, but as per the investigation officer, he did not cooperate in the investigation and he was arrested to prevent him to tampering with the crucial evidence.
During the arguments, the Counsel for complainant stated that the victim is the sitting MP of Aam Aadmi Party and earlier also, she has gone to meet the Hon’ble CM and she cannot be termed as trespasser, rather it was the applicant/accused who was present in the Hon’ble CM office without any authority.
It was further contended that no one has reported the matter to the police from the Hon’ble CM office and it was the complainant who has made the complaint to the police from the spot itself.
It was also argued that the magnitude of the injuries was such that they were present even after four days when the medical examination was done.
