• Source:JND
Add as a preferred

The Delhi High Court will on Monday hear the petition of Bibhav Kumar, a close aide of AAP supremo Arvind Kejriwal, in the assault case linked with Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was arrested by Delhi Police on May 18 in connection with the case. Justice Swarna Kant Sharma's bench, after hearing extensive arguments, on May 31 ordered to maintain the status quo.

However, senior advocate Sanjay Jain appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police and stated that his petition was not maintainable. The accused argued non-compliance with the guidelines for arrest before the trial court and filed a separate application for this.

ALSO READ: Maharashtra Weather: IMD Issues Heavy To Very Heavy Rain Alert For Mumbai and Pune Till Tomorrow 

Before this, the trial court had dismissed Vibhav's bail petition, stating that the investigation is in its initial stages and tampering with witnesses and evidence cannot be ruled out.

"The investigation is still in its initial stages, and there is a concern that witnesses could be influenced or evidence tampered with. Considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, there is no basis for granting bail at this stage," the court noted.

The court stated that the applicant, Vibhav Kumar, was involved in the investigation, but according to the investigating officer, he did not cooperate in the investigation and was arrested to prevent tampering with crucial evidence.

During arguments, the complainant's lawyer mentioned that the victim is a current member of the Aam Aadmi Party and had previously met the Chief Minister (Arvind Kejriwal), and cannot be termed as a trespasser, rather it was the applicant/accused himself who was present in the Chief Minister's office without any authorisation.

ALSO READ: Delhi Traffic Advisory: Okhla Underpass Waterlogged, Vehicular Movement Restricted | Watch

It was further argued that no one from the Chief Minister's office informed the police about the incident, and it was the complainant who complained to the police directly from the scene of the incident. It was also argued that the injuries were so severe that they were still present four days later during the medical examination.