Swati Maliwal 'assault' case: Delhi High Court reserves order on maintainability of Bibhav Kumar's plea against arrest

New Delhi, May 31

The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its order on maintainability of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar’s petition challenging his arrest in connection with an alleged assault on AAP MP Swati Maliwal at the CM’s official residence here on May 13.

“Order reserved on maintainability,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said after hearing the senior advocates representing Kumar and Delhi Police.

Kumar sought a direction to declare his arrest as illegal and in gross violation of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and against the mandate of the law. He has demanded “appropriate compensation” for his “illegal” arrest and initiation of departmental action against erring officials involved in his arrest.

Arrested on May 18, Kumar was sent to police custody for five days the same day by a magisterial court, which concluded that his anticipatory bail plea had become infructuous after his arrest. On May 24, Kumar was sent to four-day judicial custody.

Maliwal had lodged the FIR against Kumar on May 16 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those relating to criminal intimidation, assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe, and attempt to commit culpable homicide.

A Sessions Court had on Monday dismissed Kumar’s bail plea, saying there appeared no “pre-meditation” by Maliwal in lodging the FIR and that her allegations could not be “swiped away”. 

Meanwhile, Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal on Friday sent Kumar to judicial custody for 14 days, saying the probe was at a nascent stage and completing it would require time.

The Delhi Police’s senior lawyer contended before the HC that the objection regarding compliance with section 41A has already been rejected by the trial court and the petitioner should, therefore, file a revision petition against that order instead of filing a writ petition challenging his arrest.

However, the senior counsel appearing for Kumar contended his arrest was in violation of his fundamental rights and the mandate of law as there was no necessity or reasons for the arrest.

Arguing that Kumar was arrested with an “oblique motive” while his anticipatory bail was still pending in the trial court and he had even volunteered to cooperate with the investigation, the senior counsel sought to emphasise that liberty of an individual can’t be taken lightly.