The Delhi High Court is set to issue an order on July 1, 2024, regarding a plea filed by Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar, seeking a declaration that his arrest by the Delhi Police was illegal. Bibhav Kumar was taken into custody by the Delhi Police on May 18 in connection with an assault case registered by Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal.
Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma's bench, after hearing extensive arguments, postponed the decision on the plea's validity to May 31, 2024. Senior Advocate N Hariharan, representing Bibhav Kumar, argued that he had applied for anticipatory bail, but was arrested around 4:15 while the bail plea was being heard at approximately 4:00-4:30. Hariharan asserted that the arrest violated his fundamental rights and the prescribed arrest procedures. However, Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the Delhi Police, contended that the plea was not maintainable and that the arrest followed proper protocols as an emergent situation justified it.
Sanjay Jain suggested that the decision could be appealed and revised within a 90-day period. Bibhav also requested appropriate compensation for his alleged wrongful arrest and called for disciplinary action against the unidentified officials involved in his arrest decision. Earlier, the trial court had denied bail to Bibhav citing the ongoing investigation and the potential influencing of witnesses and evidence tampering.
The Court emphasized the importance of considering the victim's claims, noting that the delay in filing the FIR did not diminish the significance of the injuries documented in the Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) after four days. The Court also highlighted the applicant's presence at the Chief Minister's residence even after his termination, as well as allegations of tampering with evidence.
The investigating agency reported that the applicant had cleared his phone data and refused to provide access. The CCTV footage from the CM's office was found to be blank. It was revealed that the complainant underwent a medical examination at AIIMS Hospital on May 16, 2024, and her statement was recorded by a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The Court mentioned that the applicant did not cooperate with the investigation and was arrested to prevent tampering with crucial evidence.
During the proceedings, the complainant's counsel argued that the victim was an elected MP of the Aam Aadmi Party, implying her presence at the CM’s office was justified compared to the applicant/accused being there without authorization. The counsel further stated that the injuries remained visible even after four days from the medical examination, emphasizing their severity.