Swati Maliwal ‘assault’ case: HC nixes Bibhav Kumar’s bail plea, says ‘preposterous to infer he was falsely implicated’

Kumar had argued that he was the CM’s personal secretary, “merely dealing with political appointments of the Chief Minister”, and he had no motive for the alleged assault.

The HC also said Maliwal would not have made a call on 112 “during the course of assault in case no such incident had occurred”.

The HC then said the “utterances” made by Kumar during the alleged assault, “as reflected in the FIR, show there was a deeper conspiracy or motive to be achieved”.

“Since the complainant (Maliwal) is a dignified member of a political party, she had second thoughts to lodge the complaint, considering the powerful position of the petitioner. As such, despite mustering the courage to visit the police station on the same day and informing the SHO, the complainant returned without lodging the FIR. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, it may be preposterous at this stage to infer that the petitioner (Kumar) has been falsely implicated and allegations have been concocted since apparently the complainant had no motive to implicate the petitioner,” the HC added.

The HC further took note of the police’s submission that there has been “an effort to suppress crucial evidence” since only a selective portion of the CCTV footage at the “CM Residence cum Office was handed over” during the probe.

The court also noted that a report forwarded by an Assistant Section Officer posted at the CM’s Office to the Section Officer concerned on May 13 is yet to be investigated as it was not handed over to the police.

Justice Mendiratta observed that ordinarily, any such “serious security breach” should also have been immediately reported to Delhi Police officers for necessary action, apart from sending a report to senior officers.

The court further observed that the fact that the mobile phone seized from Kumar was also “formatted prior to seizure” reflects that there is an “effort to conceal some vital evidence” as a “message is alleged to have been forwarded by the complainant to the petitioner through WhatsApp on reaching the CM Office”.

The HC said, “No doubt, the petitioner happens to be only designated as a PS but the facts and circumstances reflect that he yields considerable influence and it cannot be ruled out that witnesses may be influenced or evidence may be tampered with, in case the petitioner is released on bail, at this stage. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of accusation and apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, no grounds are made out for releasing the petitioner on bail, at this stage.”

Dismissing Kumar’s plea, the HC added that nothing in the order would amount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Kumar, who was arrested on May 18, moved the HC after the trial court denied him bail on June 7. He has been booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 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.