The Supreme Court of India expressed deep 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 was particularly alarmed by the circumstances surrounding the incident, which reportedly occurred at the Chief Minister’s residence.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan scrutinized the case during a hearing of Kumar’s bail plea, which was previously denied by the Delhi High Court on July 12. The bench issued a notice on Kumar’s bail plea and scheduled a hearing for August 7.
The justices voiced their shock over the nature of the alleged assault, emphasizing that the severity of Maliwal’s injuries was not the main issue. “We are shocked at the manner in which it is done to somebody visiting the CM residence,” Justice Surya Kant remarked. The Court’s concerns were directed at the inappropriate conduct expected at such a high-profile location.
Kumar’s defense lawyer, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that the charges against Kumar were related primarily to causing injury, and thus, he should be granted bail as the investigation was complete and the evidence was unlikely to be tampered with. Singhvi emphasized that Kumar had been held in custody for 75 days and suggested that Maliwal’s delayed complaint was suspect.
The bench, however, raised pointed questions about Kumar’s authority and conduct. “What kind of moral policing does he do?” the justices questioned, indicating their disapproval of Kumar’s alleged behavior. They also criticized Kumar’s attempt to present the case as a personal vendetta rather than a matter of legal violation.
The Supreme Court also sought a response from the Delhi Police on Kumar’s bail plea and allowed Kumar’s legal team to submit the charge sheet for review. The Court noted the disparity between Kumar’s status as a former government servant and his actions, questioning whether his role as a political assistant conferred undue power over others.
The case centers on an incident that allegedly occurred on May 13, with Kumar being booked under sections of the Indian Penal Code related to criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide. Kumar has consistently denied the allegations, arguing that his arrest was executed hastily and without due process.
Sources By Agencies