Shocked that someone was assaulted at Delhi CM’s house: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the conduct of Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s political aide Bibhav Kumar in a case of alleged assault of Rajya Sabbha member Swati Maliwal and said it was shocked by the manner in which the incident took place at the chief minister’s residence, even as it issued notice on Kumar’s bail plea and listed it for hearing on Wednesday.
The top court rubbished Kumar’s lawyer senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s suggestion that Maliwal’s complaint was concocted as she filed it on May 16, three days after the alleged incident, and questioned the authority of the accused to take such a step against a woman who persistently told him to stop due to a particular physical condition she was in.
A bench headed by justice Surya Kant said: “The question is not whether the injuries are major or minor. We are shocked at the manner in which it is done to somebody visiting the CM residence.” However, the court agreed to consider Kumar’s bail plea and issued notice on the same. Kumar approached the top court challenging denial of bail by the Delhi high court by an order of July 12.
Singhvi said that Maliwal had come to the chief minister’s residence and nobody had gone to her house to which the bench, also comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan said: “Is the office of CM a private residence? Does it need these kinds of rules? We have released on bail people who are charged with heinous offences. But see the way and manner in which the offence is done. What kind of power has gone into his head that she tells him to stop as she is having a particular physical condition, but he continues? It is inhuman.”
The court posted the matter on August 7 to consider the charge sheet filed in this case on July 30. Seeking response from Delhi Police on Kumar’s bail plea, it permitted the petitioner’s lawyers to place the charge sheet on record. Singhvi said that the allegation against Kumar is that of causing injury and grounds for granting bail are made out as there is no manner he can tamper with evidence with the charge sheet having been filed.
The court replied: “If this kind of person cannot influence, who else can? If he can mislead people by calling the staff from outside, can anybody dare to speak against him.”
The bench wished to know if Kumar was a former aide of CM or a government servant. Singhvi clarified he is a former government servant, but is currently a political assistant who fixes appointments of CM. “The FIR says you are ex-private secretary. What authority did you have at the office of CM that the victim did not have? You want to make a case as if some goon has gone into the house. And he is not even ashamed of what he has done.”
Singhvi pointed out that Kumar has been in jail for 75 days.
Singhvi said that the FIR was possible due to “friendly” police under a “friendly” Lieutenant Governor. The court refrained from entering that argument and said: “These are your internal political affairs.”
The FIR filed against Kumar on May 16, cited various charges under the Indian Penal Code, including criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide. Kumar insisted that the allegations were false and that his custody was unnecessary since the investigation was complete.