The Delhi High Court is set to issue an order on July 1, 2024, regarding the plea from Bibhav Kumar (close aide of Kejriwal), challenging the legality of his arrest by Delhi Police.
Bibhav Kumar was detained on May 18 in connection with an FIR filed by Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal for an assault case.
Bench Orders
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma’s bench reserved the decision on the plea’s maintainability on May 31, 2024, after hearing extensive arguments. Senior Advocate N Hariharan, representing Bibhav Kumar, argued that Kumar was arrested around 4:15 PM while his anticipatory bail was being heard around 4:00-4:30 PM. Hariharan claimed this arrest violated Kumar’s fundamental rights and did not follow the 41A procedure, necessitating court intervention.
In contrast, Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the Delhi Police, contended that the petition was not maintainable. He argued that the proper guidelines for arrest had been followed, as noted by the trial court, and that Kumar should have filed a revision application within 90 days instead of approaching the High Court directly.
Bibhav Kumar’s plea also seeks compensation for his allegedly illegal arrest, which he claims was a blatant violation of legal provisions. He has called for departmental action against the officials involved in his arrest.
Recently, a vacation judge of the Delhi High Court sought a response from Delhi Police regarding Kumar’s bail plea, which challenges a trial court’s order denying bail. The trial court had dismissed Kumar’s bail petition, stating that the investigation was in its initial stages and there was a risk of witness tampering and evidence destruction.
More Into The Case
The trial court emphasized that the allegations against Kumar must be taken seriously and the delay in registering the FIR did not significantly impact the case due to evident injuries reported in the Medical Legal Case (MLC) after four days. The court also noted that Kumar was present at the CM’s residence even after his employment had been terminated.
Additionally, the investigating agency reported that Kumar had formatted his mobile phone and failed to provide the password, and the CCTV footage from the CM’s camp office was blank. The court noted that the complainant was medically examined on May 16, 2024, and her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. corroborated her complaint and the MLC findings.
The court further mentioned that Kumar did not cooperate with the investigation and was arrested to prevent tampering with crucial evidence. The complainant’s counsel highlighted that the victim, an MP of the Aam Aadmi Party, was not a trespasser and that Kumar was present in the CM’s office without authority.
It was also noted that the complainant herself reported the matter to the police, highlighting the severity of the injuries that were evident even after four days.
