Supreme Court grants bail to Kejriwal’s PA Bibhav Kumar in Swati Maliwal assault case

The Supreme Court on Monday (2 September) granted bail to Bibhav Kumar, personal assistant to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the Swati Maliwal assault case.

A bank made of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that more than 51 witnesses are to be questioned by the prosecution and the completion of the trial will therefore take some time. In addition, the plaintiff has been in custody for over 100 days. Since the indictment has already been filed, his release will not affect the investigation that has already been completed, the court noted.

“Mr. ASG, the indictment has been filed. He has been in custody for over 100 days. And according to the doctor’s report, the injuries are two bruises of a minor nature. This is a bail case. You should not fight it.” Judge Bhuyan said Additional Attorney General SV Rajuwho represented the Delhi Police.

ASG Raju replied that there were witnesses who were under the influence of the complainant and that after their examination he could be released on bail. Since it was a crime against women and the video footage had been tampered with, bail was not appropriate, argued the ASG.

Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singvhi, Kumar argued that invoking Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to cause wilful killing not amounting to murder) was not justified as the cases were simple injuries. He added that the witnesses were officials of the Delhi Police itself and hence there was no way to intimidate or influence them.

The court did not accept the ASG’s proposal to delay the decision on bail until the examination of the private witnesses is completed. To allay concerns that the plaintiff might influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, the court stated that appropriate conditions could be imposed.

Accordingly, the applicant’s bail was subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall not be reinstated in the position of Personal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Delhi nor shall he be assigned to any other official duty in the Office of the Chief Minister.

2. The applicant shall not be allowed to enter the residence of the Chief Minister of Delhi until the private witnesses at risk have been examined.

3. The public prosecutor should first question the private witnesses at risk.

4. The complainant or members of the political party to which he belongs may not make any public statements on the matter.

The court stated that bail was subject to further conditions to be determined by the court.

Singhvi said the plaintiff has been a close associate of Kejriwal for over twenty years and objected to the condition that the plaintiff should not visit Kejriwal’s residence. However, the court said that this was not a permanent condition but a temporary measure. When Singhvi sought to fix a specific time limit, the court directed that the court should examine the private witnesses as soon as possible, preferably within three months.

Senior Counsel Mukta Gupta (also appearing for Kumar) stated that the plaintiff could argue that the investigation was unfair. However, the court stated that it would not enter into a ruling on the matter.

background

An FIR was filed against Kumar after Swati Maliwal, Aam Aadmi Party MP in the Rajya Sabha, filed a written complaint alleging that Kumar assaulted her when she went to meet Kejriwal at his residence on May 13.

Following the complaint, Kumar was arrested on May 18. According to the Delhi Police, he was uncooperative during the investigation and gave evasive answers to their questions. It was also alleged that he deliberately did not reveal the password of his mobile phone, which is a crucial information for the investigation to unearth the truth.

Kumar had initially applied to the court for bail, but it was denied on May 27. His second application for bail was rejected by the court on June 7.

Kumar angrily approached the Delhi High Court, but the court rejected his bail application on the grounds that despite being only the chief minister’s personal secretary, he wields considerable influence. The judge said that at this stage, it cannot be ruled out that witnesses might be influenced or evidence tampered with if Kumar is released on bail.

Kumar appealed against the Delhi High Court’s verdict to the Supreme Court.

According to Kumar, it is a classic case of misuse of criminal schemes and investigation fraud as he and Maliwal have both filed complaints against each other but only Maliwal’s case is being investigated. This is because Maliwal is an influential person (he is a Member of Parliament). It is also alleged that he has been threatened with dire consequences including implicating him in false and frivolous cases and that Maliwal’s FIR is based on a nefarious intention.

Counsel for Bibhav Kumar: Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Mukta Gupta; Advocates-at-Law Vivek Jain and Karan Sharma

Counsel for the accused – Delhi Police: ASG SV Raju

Case Title: BIBHAV KUMAR v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI, SLP (Crl) No. 9817/2024

Click here to read/download the order