Swati Maliwal assault case: Delhi HC reserves order on 'Maintainability' of Bibhav plea challenging his arrest

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved the order on maintainability grounds on a plea moved by Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar seeking direction to declare his arrest by Delhi Police as illegal.
Bibhav Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18, in connection with a FIR registered by Rajyasabha MP Swati Maliwal assault case.
The bench of Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma after hearing the arguements at length, reserved the order on Maintainability grounds.
Appearing for Bibhav Kumar, Senior Advocate N Hariharan submitted that, "I put an anticipatory bail, while around 4:00-4:30, it is being heard, I am arrested around 4:15. If the arrest is happening in such a fashion then the court must intervene. My fundamental rights were exploited by being arrested in such a fashion and hence, I am here. You flouted the 41A procedure"
However, Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain appeared for Delhi Police and stated that Bibhav's petition was not maintainable, "The accused argued the violation of guidelines of arrest not being followed before the trial court and a separate application was moved for the same. On that Magistrate concluded that reasons for emergent arrest were mentioned and hence, because, on May 20 an order was passed and is not mentioned here and the same shall be taken seriously."
"This order is capable of being revised, he can file a revision application and there is a 90-day period for that...but they have skipped this step and directly approached here," said Sanjay Jain appeared for Delhi Police.
Bibhav through his plea also sought appropriate compensation for his alleged illegal arrest, in deliberate and blatant violation of the provisions of law.
Direct the 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 said that the investigation is at an initial stage and influencing of witnesses and tampering with evidence cannot be ruled out.
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 allegations raised by the victim have to be taken at their face value and cannot be swiped away. The mere delay in registering the FIR would not have much impact on the case as the injuries are apparent in the MLC after four days. There seems to be no pre-meditation on the part of the victim as if it would have been so, then the FIR would have been registered on the same day," said the court.
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 judge said that it has come on record that the complainant was medically examined on 16.05.2024 at AIIMS Hospital. Her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Her version
as mentioned in the complaint finds corroboration from the MLC and her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.PC.
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 arguements, the Counsel for the complainant alongwith her argued that the victim is the sitting MP of the Aam Aadmi Party and earlier also, she had gone to meet the Hon'ble CM and she cannot be termed as a trespasser, rather it was the applicant/accused who was present in the Hon 'ble 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. The complainant has had an association with the CM for the last nine years and she was brutally assaulted...., she went to the Police station but due to trauma, she did not complain.