Swati Maliwal had alleged that Bibhav Kumar assaulted her at the CM’s official residence. (PTI)
The case hogged headlines in May this year when Maliwal, an Aam Aadmi Party MP, alleged that Kumar had assaulted her at Kejriwal’s official residence and blamed the chief minister for trying to protect his aide
The Supreme Court on Thursday came down heavily on Bibhav Kumar, a close aide of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal who is seeking bail in the Swati Maliwal assault case, asking if power had gone to his head as it noted that he was not ashamed of his behaviour.
The case hogged headlines in May this year when Maliwal, an Aam Aadmi Party MP in the Rajya Sabha, alleged that Kumar had assaulted her at Kejriwal’s official residence and blamed the chief minister for trying to protect his aide.
Giving details of the assault, Maliwal alleged that Kumar slapped her at least 7-8 times while she screamed. She pushed him away to protect herself, but he then pounced on her, brutally dragged her, and deliberately pulled her shirt up. An FIR was registered against Kumar on May 16 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and he was arrested on May 18.
On Thursday, the three-judge bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan said it was shocked at the manner in which the incident had unfolded. “What does he think? Power has gone to his head. You [Kumar] were the ex-secretary. If the victim had no authority to be there, even you did not have authority to be there.”
The court added: “He is not ashamed of doing it. She is a young woman. The FIR says she asked him to stop. She was in a particular condition then. Do you think anyone in that room watching would have dared to say anything against him?”
Noting that Kumar had behaved “as if some goon entered the premises”, the court said: “These are your political affairs. Law and criminal allegations don’t have anything to do with it.”
As senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Kumar, took the court through the MLC report which described the nature of injuries on Maliwal to be non-dangerous and simple injuries, the Bench asked about the emergency call made from Kejriwal’s residence just after the incident.
Singhvi also argued that Kumar had been in custody for 75 days and the chargesheet had been filed (since after the Delhi High Court order). He contended that Maliwal registered the FIR three days after the incident “with a friendly police, under a friendly LG”, but Kumar’s FIR of the same day was not registered.
It was also remarked by the Bench that bail is even granted to murderers, robbers, etc., but the allegations in Maliwal’s case weigh heavily against Kumar. “We don’t want to read in open court…but once she tells him to stop because of this particular physical condition…this man continues!”
