Bibhav Kumar acted as if a goon entered Delhi CM's residence: SC

"Is this kind of goon supposed to work in the CM's residence," the Supreme Court asked on Thursday as it came down heavily on Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar who allegedly assaulted Aam Aadmi Party Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal earlier this year.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan posted Kumar's bail plea for next Wednesday and told senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kumar, that the court was shocked with the details of the incident recorded by the Delhi High Court.

Kumar has challenged the July 12 order of the Delhi high court denying him bail in the case and claimed that the allegations against him are false. He has also said his custody was no longer required as the probe was over.      

The apex court also issued a notice to the Delhi government on his plea.

"Is CM residence a private bungalow? Is this kind of 'goon' supposed to work in the CM's residence?" the bench asked Singhvi, who said there were non-serious injuries and the FIR was lodged three days after the May 13 incident.

In its scathing remarks, the bench also asked Singhvi what Maliwal calling the police helpline number 112 during the assault indicated.

"Every day we grant bail to contract killers, murderers, robbers but the question is what kind of incident…," the bench said, while asserting that the manner in which the incident had taken place bothered it.

"He (Bibhav Kumar) acted as if some 'goon' had entered the official residence of CM," the bench said, adding that his entire argument before the high court was that her allegations are concocted.

Singhvi said on the day of the incident she went to the police station, then came back without saying anything but then after three days she lodged an FIR.

The bench told the senior lawyer, "We are shocked? Is this a way to deal with a young lady? He (Kumar) assaulted her even after she told about her physical conditions."

Singhvi said the court is relying on the details of the FIR lodged by her but Kumar's complaint was not registered by her "friendly" police and Delhi lieutenant governor.

Justice Kant said, "We are not on your internal politics and the court is only going by the case records and the FIR."

Referring to the case records, the bench said it does not want to read it in open court but once she told him to stop due to her particular physical conditions, this man continued assaulting her.

"What does he think of himself? Has power gone into his head," the bench remarked.

Singhvi said all these allegations are matters of trial and at present, he is only seeking bail.

He submitted that even taking the case at the highest level and looking at the offence, he is entitled for bail as he cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

"Yes, we are on bail only," the bench said and added that if this kind of a person cannot influence witnesses, then who can.

"Look at the records, was there any person in the drawing room (of the CM residence) who dared to speak against him? He was not even ashamed, we think," Justice Kant said.

Singhvi said a charge-sheet has been filed in the case and Kumar has been in custody for 75 days now. He should have been granted bail by the sessions court itself, the senior advocate said.

The bench said it is not about major or minor injury but the nature of the incident, and pointed out that Kumar acted like "some goon had entered the official residence of the chief minister".

Justice Datta asked Singhvi about Kumar's designation.

Singhvi replied that Kumar was earlier a government servant and now he was political advisor-cum-secretary to Kejriwal, who handles political appointments.

On the next date of hearing, Singhvi said, he would bring the medical report of the victim (Maliwal) and a copy of the charge-sheet to argue the case.

Kumar allegedly assaulted Maliwal on May 13 at Kejriwal's official residence.

An FIR was registered against Kumar on May 16 under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including those related to criminal intimidation, assault or using criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe, and attempt to commit culpable homicide. He was arrested on May 18.

While denying him bail, the high court had said that the accused enjoys "considerable influence" and no ground was made out to grant him the relief.

It cannot be ruled out that witnesses may be influenced or evidence tampered with in case the petitioner is released on bail, the high court had said.