Swati Maliwal assault case: Delhi HC requests police response on Kejriwal aide Bibhav Kumar’s bail plea

PTC News Desk: AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal was allegedly assaulted by chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s assistant, Bibhav Kumar. Kumar was arrested, and the Delhi High Court on Friday sent a notice to the police asking for their opinion on his bail application.

Amit Sharma’s vacation bench has requested a status report from the Delhi Police. The case was scheduled for hearing on July 1 by the court.

This comes after Bibhav Kumar filed a motion to request regular bail in the case with the Delhi High Court on June 12.

On June 7, a Delhi court rejected bail to Bibhav Kumar, who is being detained under judicial supervision. The charges against him are ‘severe and serious,’ the court claims, and there was concern that he would sway witnesses. A sessions court had previously denied him bail on May 27, stating that Maliwal did not seem to have any ‘pre-meditation’ in filing the FIR and that her accusations could not be ‘swiped away.’

After Maliwal accused Kumar in a formal complaint of beating her on May 13 at the chief minister’s house, Kumar was taken into custody on May 18. Kumar repeatedly slapped her and kicked her in the stomach and pelvis, according to the FIR.

Sections 354, 506, 509, and 323 of the IPC, which address offenses like assault or criminal force on a lady with intent to insult her modesty and criminal intimidation, are where the police filed a FIR against Kumar after receiving the complaint.

What is stated in Bibhav Kumar’s bail request?

In his bail petition before the high court, Bibhav Kumar claims that the trial court “failed” to take into account the fact that the investigating officer had gathered all relevant evidence and had taken witness statements, hence he was not in need of additional imprisonment.

“The additional sessions judge disregarded this fact when granting the bail rejection order. Since the IO has gathered all relevant evidence for the aforementioned FIR and has also recorded witness statements, the petitioner’s custody is unnecessary, and holding the petitioner in judicial custody will serve no purpose,” the statement read.