Swati Maliwal assault case: Delhi HC to hear Bibhav Kumar's plea challenging his arrest on May 31

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court agreed to hear the plea filed by Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar on May 31 challenging his arrest in the assault case lodged by AAP MP Swati Maliwal.

Bibhav Kumar on Wednesday moved the Delhi High Court seeking direction to declare his arrest by Delhi Police as illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The plea also seeks an order that the petitioner be paid appropriate compensation for his illegal arrest, in deliberate and blatant violation of the provisions of law.

He was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18, after he was accused of assaulting Rajyasabha MP Swati Maliwal.

"Departmental action be initiated against the unknown erring officials, who were involved in the decision making viz. the arrest of the petitioner," stated the plea.

Recently the trial court dismissed Bibhav's bail petition and stated that the investigation is at an initial stage and influencing of witnesses and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out.

The 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 applicant was present at the CM's house even after his employment had 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 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 from tampering with the crucial evidence.

During the arguments, the Counsel for the complainant argued that the victim is the sitting MP of the Aam Aadmi Party and earlier also, she had gone to meet the CM and she cannot be termed a trespasser, rather it was the applicant/accused who was present in the CM office without any authority.

It was further contended that no one had reported the matter to the police from the CM office and it was the complainant who had 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. He contended that the complainant had had an association with the CM for the last nine years and she was brutally assaulted.