The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, was reviewing Kumar’s bail plea following the Delhi High Court’s recent denial of bail.
![[Swati Maliwal Assault Case] Does Delhi Chief Minister Office Need Goons? SC Slams Delhi CM Aide Bibhav Kumar](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Untitled-design-.jpg?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
NEW DELHI: Today (31st July): The Supreme Court strongly criticized Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is accused of assaulting AAP MP Swati Maliwal. The court expressed its shock at the incident, describing it as if a “goon” had breached Kejriwal’s residence to attack Maliwal.
READ ALSO: [Swati Maliwal Assault Case] Bibhav Kumar Seeks Regular Bail from Delhi HC
The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, was reviewing Kumar’s bail plea following the Delhi High Court’s recent denial of bail.
Earlier in May, a Delhi magisterial court had also rejected his bail request.
The bench questioned the appropriateness of having such “goons” at the Chief Minister’s residence, asking, “Is this how it is supposed to be? We are shocked. How did this happen?”
They highlighted that Maliwal had pleaded with Kumar to stop his assault, but he persisted.
READ ALSO: [Breaking] Swati Maliwal assault case| Delhi Court Rejects Bail for Accused, Bibhav Kumar
The court reprimanded Kumar for his behavior, asking,
“What does he think of himself? Does he feel powerful? He made it appear as though a goon had entered the premises. Does he have any shame, considering Swati Maliwal is a young woman?”
The bench further remarked,
“As a former secretary, if the victim had no right to be there, neither did you. Do you believe anyone in that room would have had the courage to speak against Bibhav?”
Kumar is alleged to have assaulted Maliwal at the Chief Minister’s residence on May 13. He claimed in his bail plea that he had already endured more than 25 days of detention and argued that Maliwal’s injuries were inconsistent with the medico-legal report.
Background
The incident allegedly took place on May 13 at Arvind Kejriwal’s official residence. Swati Maliwal, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, attempted to meet Kejriwal while he was out on interim bail for the Delhi Excise Policy case. According to the criminal complaint, Bibhav Kumar assaulted Maliwal, hitting her in the chest, stomach, and pelvic area, and threatened her with severe consequences if she reported the incident.
AAP has denied the allegations and subsequently removed Maliwal from the party’s ‘star campaigners’ list ahead of the Lok Sabha elections.
Videos that emerged on social media reportedly show Maliwal arguing with security personnel and leaving the Chief Minister’s residence.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kumar, argued that the trial court should have granted bail. He highlighted inconsistencies in Maliwal’s statements about the assault’s location and noted that while the incident occurred on May 13, the FIR was filed on May 16, and the chargesheet was submitted on June 30, after Kumar’s bail was denied.
Singhvi argued that the trial, not the bail hearing, was the proper venue to address these issues, emphasizing that the case did not involve murder. He also assured the Court that Kumar could not tamper with evidence.
Justice Datta inquired about Kumar’s role during the incident, to which Singhvi clarified that Kumar was the political secretary handling appointments. Justice Kant corrected this, stating Kumar was a government employee.
Justice Kant acknowledged that while bail is often granted in murder cases, the seriousness of the FIR and the distress reported by Maliwal were significant.
Kumar was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18 and initially remanded to police custody for five days before being sent to judicial custody on May 24. His bail pleas were rejected by a trial court on May 27 and June 7, and the Delhi High Court denied bail on July 12, citing Kumar’s potential to influence witnesses due to his position. Kumar’s appeal against the High Court’s decision has been filed with the Supreme Court through Advocate Karan Sharma.
