The Delhi High Court will hear next week the regular bail plea of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar in a case pertaining to the alleged assault of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. Appearing for the Delhi Police, senior advocate Sanjay Jain informed a single-judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta on Monday that Kumar had filed a petition challenging his arrest which is "reserved for orders" and likely to be pronounced on Monday, July 1. Meanwhile, senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Kumar, informed the court that the order is "reserved on the point of maintainability" of Kumar's writ petition. Maliwal's counsel sought some time to file his client's response which was permitted by the high court, and the matter was listed on July 8. Kumar was arrested on May 18, and he moved the high court after a trial court denied him bail on June 7. He was booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those pertaining to assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe, criminal intimidation, and attempt to commit culpable homicide, among others. During the hearing, Hariharan argued that the scope of Kumar's plea challenging arrest was completely different as, in that matter, the arrest was effected without serving his client a notice under Section 41A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). While denying him bail, Special Judge Ekta Gauba Mann of Tis Hazari Court had said, “…considering the fact that Bibhav Kumar is alleged to have misbehaved with a lady member of the political party at the official residence of the Hon’ble CM, where not only the elected members of their political party could meet the Hon’ble CM but even the general public could go and meet the Hon’ble CM regarding their grievances. This creates fear and panic in the mind of the general public to meet their leader.” Kumar argued in his plea before the high court that the trial court while passing the bail rejection order had failed to consider that the investigating officer had collected all evidence related to the FIR and recorded the witnesses' statements. Therefore, his custody was not required, he said.
