After a late-night hearing on Saturday, a Delhi court sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar to five days in police custody in connection with the alleged assault on AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal. The Delhi Police arrested Kumar earlier in the day and his anticipatory bail plea was subsequently observed as becoming “infructuous”.
Kumar was later produced before Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal who sent him to five-day police custody. Police, through their counsel, had sought seven-day custody of Kumar to question him in connection with the assault case. It is alleged that Kumar, the personal assistant of Kejriwal, assaulted Maliwal at the CM’s residence on May 13 morning.
They said Kumar did not provide the password of his mobile phone to the investigating agency and had also informed that his phone had been formatted in Mumbai due to some malfunctioning in the device. Police said before being formatted the data of a mobile phone had to be cloned and Kumar was required to be taken to Mumbai for retrieving the data. The accused’s presence was also needed when his mobile phone was opened by an expert, they said.
In response, Kumar’s counsel Rajiv Mohan said neither was there any record of Maliwal’s visit to the CM’s residence before May 13 nor did she clarify the reason for registering the FIR only on May 16. The FIR was registered at the Civil Lines police station. He said that Maliwal visited the CM’s residence without an appointment and that the Delhi Police was distorting facts.
The advocate said neither did Maliwal seek any medical aid after calling the emergency helpline number 112 nor did the station house officer prepare any medical sheet after meeting her. Mohan alleged that Maliwal was politicising the issue of having suffered injuries and was also giving statements to the media. He said that Kumar’s mobile phone was not required for investigation as Maliwal had nowhere alleged about threatening on phone or WhatsApp calls. When the grounds of arrest are “not justified”, there is no question of police custody, the advocate had argued.
Another counsel for Kumar, Shadan Farasat, claimed that Kumar’s lawyers were not given a copy of the FIR, while it was circulated in the media. He claimed that Kumar was arrested solely to defeat the purpose of filing the anticipatory bail. In its rebuttal, the Delhi Police’s counsel said that according to the FIR, Maliwal was “in shock” after being assaulted and after recovering lodged the official complaint.
(With agency inputs)
Explore in-depth coverage of Lok Sabha Election 2024 Schedule, Voter Turnout, Upcoming Phase And Much More At News18 Website
Comments
0 comment