Swati Maliwal Assault Case- "Is Chief Minister's Official Bungalow A Private Residence? Is That Office Required To Keep These Types Of Goons?": SC Asks Bibhav Kumar's Counsel

While issuing notice the Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asked the Senior Counsel for Kumar, "Is the Chief Minister's official bunaglow a private residence? Is that office required to keep these types of goons?"

At the outset, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for Kumar submitted, "The Sessions Court should have granted bail, this should not have come to your Lordships." While referring to the FIR Singhvi submitted that there are five allegations against Kumar, and contended, "The MLC report which could not be filed says, non-dangerous, simple, two bruises, one to the right cheek, one to the left leg. Totally contrary to her allegations."

The Senior Counsel further submitted that the incident is of May 13, however, the FIR is lodged on May 16. "The story which is put up in the FIR is according to me very strange, that I was so traumatized that i took 3 days to.. and she went to the police station on the first day, she did not lodge an FIR, she went again on 16th," Singhvi submitted.

To the submissions, Justice Kant asked Singhvi, "What about the fact that she also called 112? If she called immediately after the incident at 112, what does that show?"

Singhvi responded, "She has a grievance."

"No, that shows ..the allegations before the High Court is that as if she (Swati Maliwal) has concocted the allegation. If somebody is assaulted and immediately after the or even during the assault is calling 112 that shows what?," Justice Kant asked Singhvi.

Singhvi contended that Maliwal came to the Chief Minister's house and that nobody went to her house. "From the waiting room, she entered the main premises," Singhvi added.

Justice Kant further questioned, "Is it a private residence? Chief Minister's official bungalow is a private residence? Is that office required to keep these types of goons?" Expressing shock, Justice Kant said, it is not a question of minor or major injury. "The question is the manner in which it has happened," he said.

Justice Datta asked Singhvi, "On 13th May, the petitioner was a secretary or the ex-secretary? Who are you?"

Singhvi responded, "I am the political secretary of the CM, I handle appointments."

"No, you are not the political secretary, you are government official probably," Justice Kant said.

Singhvi submitted, "My lord is right, I have a CAT case going on. I am out of service. I am a political secretary, who mainly handles appointment, and political advise."

Justice Datta further asked, "When you are the ex-private secretary, what authority do you have to enter the residence of the Chief Minister? If the victim (Swati Maliwal) did not have the authority, even you did not have the authority."

To this Singhvi responded, "He was called twice, when she went from the visiting room to the residential office, then from there to residential park. He came and said you have no appointment please leave."

Justice Kant expressed displeasure over the way Kumar behaved with Maliwal, and said, "Is this the way you behave with a young woman? As if she is a goon?"

Singhvi argued that this is a matter of trial, today we are on the question of bail.

"In Murder cases, we grant bail, we even grant bail to contract killer, but please see Page.. how do you? What kind of moral conviction do you need?...She is in a particular physical condition at that time, she is crying and telling that I am in such a physical condition," Justice Kant said.

Further, Justice Bhuyan asked Singhvi, since when is the petitioner in custody.

To this, Singhvi submitted, "75 days. Both the Judgments say he can tamper with witness, how?"

Justice Kant remarked, "Dr. Singhvi, do you think, anybody in that drawing room, or the place where the incident took place, would dare to speak against him? Do you think so?"

Singhvi argued that the FIR is the version of the person who makes it three days after the incident with a friendly police and LG. He further argued that it cannot be taken as gospel truth.

Taking note of the submission, accordingly, the Court issued notice to the Delhi Police and scheduled the matter for further hearing on Aug 7. While scheduling the matter on a Wednesday, the Court said, "We are listing on a Wednesday, when all three of us are there."

Pertinently, 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.