Breaking| He Shall Not Be Restored To Position Of Private Secy Or Given Official Assignment In CM's Office: SC Grants Bail To Bibhav Kumar In Swati Maliwal Assault Case

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that Kumar was arrested on 18th May 2024.

"It is not in dispute that the investigation is complete and a chargesheet has been filed. Adverting to the issue regarding the grant of bail, we find that there are more than 51 witnesses who need to be examined...the conclusion of trial will just take some time. The petitioner is already in custody for more than 100 days. The same is not likely to tamper with evidence or cause any impediment in the investigation, which is already complete. We appreciate the concern of the prosecution that the witnesses are required to be free from any kind of influence for the conclusion of trial or pre-trial. We are satisfied that desired protection can be provided through alternative measures, namely by imposing such reasonable conditions that should prevent the propensity to influence or temper the evidence...we allow the petition and grant bail to the petitioner subject to conditions that may be imposed by the trial court," the Court said while pronouncing the Order. 

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Kumar, and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju appeared for Delhi police. 

In addition to the conditions that will be imposed by the Trial Court, the Bench said, "We will impose these conditions also". The conditions are as follows:

i. The Petitioner shall not be restored to the position of private secretary (PS) or any other official assignment to the CM office. 

ii. The Petitioner shall not enter the Chief Minister's residence till all the private, vulnerable witnesses are not examined

iii. The petitioner or his associates shall not make any public comments on the case that is pending before the trial court. 

Furthermore, the Court directed the trial court to make an endeavour to examine vulnerable witnesses within 3 months. Accordingly, the Court allowed Kumar's SLP. 

Pertinently, on August 1, the Court had issued notice in the plea. The Bench had asked the Senior Counsel for Kumar, "Is the Chief Minister's official bungalow a private residence? Is that office required to keep these types of goons?"

Earlier,  on July 12, the Delhi High Court had denied bail to Kumar. The Single-Judge Bench of the High Court had said, "No doubt the petitioner happens to be only designated as a Personal Secretary (PS), but effects 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."

The Court had further ordered, "Keeping in view, the nature and gravity of accusation in the apprehension of the witnesses being influenced, no grounds are made out for releasing the petitioner on bail at this stage. Application is accordingly, dismissed, pending application, if any also stand disposed of."

On July 10, the Bench had reserved order in Kumar's Bail plea. On July 1, the Court had agreed to consider Kumar's plea challenging his arrest by the police.

Kumar had approached the High Court shortly after the Trial Court denied him bail, citing the serious nature of the allegations against him. The Court had noted the necessity of evaluating the allegations without prejudice, underscoring the early stage of the investigation and the potential risks of tampering with evidence.

"The investigation is still at the nascent stage, and the apprehension of influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the allegations made against the applicant, at this stage, no ground for bail is made out," the Trial Court had held.

The Trial Court had further said, "The allegations raised by the victim have to be taken on their face value and cannot be swiped away. The mere delay in registering the FIR would not have much impact on the case as the injuries are apparent in the MLC after four days. There seems to be no pre- meditation on the part of the victim as if it would have been so, then the FIR would have been registered on the same day."

The case pertains to allegations made by AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal, who claimed that Kumar had assaulted her at the CM’s residence on May 13, 2024. Based on Maliwal’s complaint, police had filed a First Information Report (FIR) on charges of attempted culpable homicide, assault with intent to disrobe, wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, and insulting the modesty of a woman.

In her complaint, Maliwal had alleged that Bibhav Kumar had slapped her seven to eight times without any provocation at the CM’s residence on May 13, when she went to meet Kejriwal. She also alleged that he slapped her, kicked her in the chest and pelvis, and deliberately pulled up her shirt.