New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday shredded the defence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar, who sought bail in the AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal assault case.
The apex court slammed Bibhav Kumar and told his counsel didn’t he feel ashamed of what he was doing to a young woman, who was in a particular physical condition, she was crying, and she requested him to stop. "Has the power gone into his head," the court slammed Kumar.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, strongly criticized Kumar’s conduct and told his counsel, senior advocate A M Singhvi, that courts everyday grant bail to people accused in murder, robbery cases, and also contract killers, but in this case, it is not a question of minor injury or major injury, but the question is of manner in which the incident occurred.
Singhvi insisted that it is a matter of trial, and he is before the court seeking bail for his client. He said even the trial court should have granted bail in the case as there are alleged contradictions in Maliwal's statement about where she says she was hit, and pointed out that the incident occurred on May 13, and the FIR was lodged after a gap of three days on May 16.
He said that Maliwal went to the police station on the date of the incident but did not lodge an FIR and came back, and after three days went back and registered the FIR with these injuries "which are simple and non-dangerous". Seeking bail, Singhvi said his client has been in custody over 70 days.
Justice Kant told Singhvi that Maliwal calling 112 immediately after the incident, shows what? Singhvi replied that it shows she has a grievance. to this, Justice Kant said: "That belies your story that she concocted the incident".
Singhvi said she came to the house and waited in the waiting room. Justice Kant asked Singhvi: "Is the chief minister’s official bungalow a private residence? Is that required to keep these kinds of goons, is the way to deal with it? We are shocked, and this is not a question of minor injury or major injury. The question is of manner....," Justice Kant said.
The counsel replied that the chargesheet has been filed, and the question is that is his client entitled for bail or not? "What can I tamper with?” he said. Justice Kant made it clear that in murder and robbery cases, every day court grants bail to the accused but “the way the occurrence took place…”. “We do not want to read in open court what she tells him. 'Please stop' because of her physical condition and this man continues. What he thinks, power has gone into head…these words are verbatim from the FIR”, said Justice Kant.
Singhvi said the Delhi police and the lieutenant governor (LG) did not register his client’s complaint the same day. At this juncture, Justice Datta queried Singhvi, on the day of the incident May 13, the petitioner was chief minister’s secretary or ex-secretary? Who are you? Singhvi said he is a political secretary of the CM and handles the appointments. “You are not the political secretary, you are a government official probably, this is what?”, the bench queried.
Singhvi said he was a government servant and he has a case going on in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and “I am out of service. I am a political secretary who mainly handles appointments and some political advice”.
Bibhav's counsel said an officer asked Swati Maliwal to wait in the waiting room, as there was no direction regarding Maliwal and by that time she crossed the security point and reached the door of the inside office. “Dr Singhvi, this version you have obtained after the occurrence…the story that he called him from the gate, this gentleman Mr Dixit. Coming from the front gate of the house and then coming and creating… ”, said Justice Kant.
Singhvi said the incident occurred on May 13, and it cannot be before the incident. “You are not the secretary of the Chief Minister…it (FIR) merely says that you are an ex-private secretary. If you are an ex-private secretary, what authority do you have to enter into the CM's residence? The victim did not have the authority?”, said Justice Datta.
Referring to Maliwal, Justice Kant told Singhvi, “As if some goon has gone inside the house and you want to…what does it mean”. “He did not feel ashamed of doing it to a young woman…”, said Justice Kant.
Singhvi said this is a matter of trial and today what can we do on a bail. “We grant (bail) in murder cases, we grant even to contract killers but look at the way. How do you…”, said Justice Kant, adding that Maliwal was in a particular physical condition at that time and “she was crying that she is in such a physical condition, and please stop!”.
He said how is it possible on a bail to tamper the evidence? Justice Kant said if this kind of person cannot influence the witnesses’, then who else would do? “Dr Singhvi, do you think anybody working inside that drawing room or the place where this incident took place, anybody dare to speak against him (Kumar). Do you think so?”, said Justice Kant.
Singhvi said FIR was registered after three days’ under a friendly police and friendly LG. The bench made it clear these are all political affairs and the law and criminal allegations have nothing to do with that.
After detailed hearing in the matter, the apex court issued notice on a plea filed by Kumar against Delhi High Court's rejecting his bail in the Swati Maliwal assault case. The bench has scheduled the matter for further hearing next Wednesday.
Kumar, personal secretary to Kejriwal, is currently in judicial custody. It has been alleged that he assaulted Maliwal on May 13 at the Delhi Chief Minister’s official residence. Kumar was arrested on May 18.
Kumar moved the top court challenging the July 12 order of the Delhi High Court, which declined to grant him bail in the case. Kumar has maintained that false allegations have been levelled against him and, pointing that the probe in the matter is over, he said that his custody is not required any more.
The high court, while declining to entertain his bail plea, had said that he enjoys considerable influence and the court failed to see any ground to grant him the relief he sought. The high court had said that, if bail were to be granted to him, there is a possibility that he may influence the witnesses or may even tamper with the evidence in the case.
Read More
Two DCW Members Accuse Swati Maliwal Of Making 'Fictitious' Claims Against Delhi Govt
