Swati Maliwal assault case: Delhi HC seeks police’s stand on Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar’s bail plea.

Bibhav Kumar, who is currently in judicial custody, was denied bail by a Delhi court on June 7. The Delhi high court on Friday issued a notice to the police, seeking its stand on a bail application of chief minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar, who was arrested for allegedly assaulting AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. A vacation bench of Justice Amit Sharma has asked the Delhi Police to file a status report. The court listed the matter for hearing on July 1. This comes after Bibhav Kumar moved the Delhi high court on June 12 to seek regular bail in the case. Bibhav Kumar, who is currently in judicial custody, was denied bail by a Delhi court on June 7. According to the court, the charges against him are “grave and serious”, and there was an apprehension that he could influence witnesses. Previously, his bail was dismissed on May 27 by a sessions court, which said Maliwal appeared to have no “pre-meditation” in lodging the FIR and that her allegations could not be “swiped away.” Kumar was arrested on May 18 after Maliwal, in an FIR, accused him of physically assaulting her at the CM’s residence on May 13. According to the FIR, Kumar repeatedly slapped her and kicked her in the stomach and pelvic area. Following the complaint, the police registered an FIR against Kumar under sections 354, 506, 509, and 323 of the IPC, which deal with crimes like assault or criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and criminal intimidation. What does Bibhav Kumar’s bail plea say? Bibhav Kumar’s bail plea before the high court states that the trial court “failed” to consider that his further custody was not required as the investigating officer had collected all evidence and recorded witness statements. “While passing the bail rejection order, the additional sessions judge failed to consider the fact that all the evidence in relation to the aforesaid FIR has been collected by the IO and has also recorded the statements of the witnesses therefore, the custody of the petitioner is not required, and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in the judicial custody,” it said.