The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the Delhi Police’s stand in 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 last month. A single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma issued notice to the police asking them to file their status report in the matter. The high court further said that the status report would also “show the status of the investigation in the case”. The matter is next listed in the first week of July. Arrested on May 18, Kumar moved the high court after the trial court denied him bail on June 7. During the hearing, senior advocate N Hariharan, appearing for Kumar, urged the court to list the matter earlier arguing that Kumar had been in custody for over a month in a case where there were “no injuries at all”. “More than 30 days I have spent in custody in an offence like this. Why am I required? They had themselves sought a police remand.nothing has come out of it,” Hariharan said. The Delhi Police submitted that the investigation was “still going on and it will take some time”. On the court’s query as to how much time it will take for the completion of the investigation, the police counsel said, “The FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) is pending with respect to the mobile phones and DVRs which have been seized.” Kumar has been booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sections 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), among others. While denying him bail on June 7, 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, in his plea before the high court, has said that while passing the bail rejection order, the trial court failed to consider the fact that “all the evidence in relation” to the FIR had been collected by the investigating officer and “statements of the witnesses” had also been recorded; therefore, Kumar’s custody was not required. Kumar had earlier moved a plea in the high court challenging his arrest in the case. On May 31, the high court had reserved its verdict on the maintainability of his plea.
