Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Delhi Court Remands Bibhav Kumar to 5-Day Police Custody

Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court has sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide, Bibhav Kumar, to five days in police custody in connection with the alleged assault on AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal. Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police on Saturday, 18th May, and his anticipatory bail plea was subsequently deemed “infructuous” by the court.

Kumar was produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal, who ordered the five-day police custody. The police, through their counsel, had sought seven-day custody of Kumar to question him about the assault case.

It is alleged that Kumar, Kejriwal’s personal assistant, assaulted Maliwal at the Chief Minister’s residence on the morning of May 13.

Delhi Police Arguments

Police argued that Kumar’s custody was necessary to question him about the reason for the assault. They stated that Kumar did not provide the password for his mobile phone to the investigating agency and claimed his phone had been formatted in Mumbai due to malfunctioning.

The police indicated that before being formatted, a mobile phone’s data must be cloned, and Kumar needed to be taken to Mumbai to retrieve the data. They also stated that his presence was required when his phone is opened by an expert.

Bibhav Kumar’s Counter Arguments

Countering these arguments, Kumar’s counsel, Rajiv Mohan, noted that there was no record of Maliwal’s visit to the Chief Minister’s residence on May 13, nor did she clarify why the FIR was filed only on May 16. The FIR was registered at the Civil Lines police station.

Mohan argued that Maliwal visited the CM’s residence without an appointment and that the Delhi Police was distorting facts. He noted that Maliwal did not seek medical aid after calling emergency helpline 112, nor did the station house officer prepare a medical sheet after meeting her.

Mohan alleged that Maliwal was politicizing the issue, claiming injuries, and giving statements to the media. He argued that Kumar’s mobile phone was not necessary for the investigation, as Maliwal had not alleged any threats via phone or WhatsApp.

Another counsel for Kumar, Shadan Farasat, claimed that Kumar’s lawyers were not provided with a copy of the FIR, while it was circulated in the media. He argued that Kumar was arrested solely to defeat the purpose of his anticipatory bail application.

In response, the Delhi Police’s counsel stated that according to the FIR, Maliwal was “in shock” after the assault and lodged the official complaint after recovering.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International