NEW DELHI: The Delhi Police has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on Thursday opposing the bail application of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide, Bibhav Kumar, in the case involving the assault of AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal.
In its affidavit, the Delhi Police argued that Kumar, being an influential and powerful individual, might influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.
“He (Bibhav Kumar) may influence the witnesses and tamper with evidence. The incident has had a significant impact on the mental state of Maliwal. The victim (Swati Maliwal) was confined to her home for four days. His counter-complaint appears to be concocted to avoid the repercussions of his own actions,” the affidavit stated.
During the previous hearing on August 7, the Supreme Court had directed the Delhi Police to file a detailed response by August 21 regarding Kumar’s plea for bail. Kumar, accused of assaulting AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal, had challenged the Delhi High Court’s order denying him bail.
Senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kumar, noted that the chargesheet had already been filed. In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, representing the ED, indicated that a counter-affidavit was required. Singhvi, humorously, remarked that the chargesheet itself served as the best counter.
The Supreme Court’s three-judge bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and including Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Dipankar Dutta, will continue hearing the matter on August 27. The court directed, “The counter-affidavit must be filed (by Delhi Police) on or before August 21. A rejoinder, if any, from Kumar should be filed by August 24. The matter will be listed on August 27.”
On August 1, the Supreme Court came down heavily on Kumar, questioning whether such behavior was acceptable for someone working in the Chief Minister’s residence. "Is this kind of goon supposed to work in the CM's residence." the court said.
The court expressed its shock at the details recorded by the Delhi High Court.
The bench stated, “You are right, we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here look at the FIR. If this kind of person cannot influence witness then who can? He doesn't seem ashamed we think.”
Justice Kant, leading the bench, issued notice to the Delhi Police and requested a detailed response, scheduling the next hearing for August 7.
The Supreme Court questioned the appropriateness of Kumar’s conduct in the Chief Minister’s residence and stated, “Is the Chief Minister’s residence a private bungalow? Is this kind of goon supposed to work there? We are shocked; this is not about minor or major injuries.”
Defending Kumar, Singhvi highlighted contradictions in Maliwal’s statements, including discrepancies about where she was injured and delays in filing the FIR. Singhvi argued that the FIR should not be taken as gospel truth due to these inconsistencies and pleaded for bail.
The Supreme Court observed that despite Maliwal’s instructions to stop due to her physical condition, Kumar continued. "What he thinks, power has gotten to his head?,” the bench said.
Singhvi added that Kumar had been in custody for 75 days and the chargesheet had already been filed. The Supreme Court asked him to submit the chargesheet for its review.
Kumar, accused of assaulting AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal, had approached the Supreme Court on July 25 challenging the Delhi High Court’s July 12 order denying him bail.
The High Court had noted that the mobile phone seized from Kumar had been formatted prior to seizure, suggesting an attempt to conceal vital evidence.
"No doubt, the petitioner (Kumar) happens to be only designated as a PS (Private Secretary), but the facts and circumstances reflect that he yields considerable influence and it cannot be ruled out that witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with, in case the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of accusation and apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, no grounds are made out for releasing the petitioner on bail, at this stage. Application is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of," said the HC order, as it rejected his bail plea.