High Court gives Bharti 2-day protection against arrest
Justice Suresh Kait while passing the interim order also issued <g data-gr-id="37">notice</g> to the Police, directing it to file a status report in the case by September 17, the next date of hearing. The court declined Delhi Police’s request not to grant any interim protection from arrest to the former Delhi law minister, saying “I have to consider the material on record, so you file your affidavit in this regard.”
“If you do not want to file your response, tell me, I will hear it today itself and pass the order,” the court said, adding “Notice issued. Meanwhile, Delhi Police shall file their status report. No coercive steps till then.”
The order came on the AAP MLA’s plea seeking anticipatory bail in view of the non-bailable warrant issued for his arrest by a trial court on Monday.
Appearing for Bharti, senior advocate Dayan Krishnan argued in court that the sum and substance of the FIR against the MLA was a matrimonial dispute which has been “blown out of proportion” in view of his “elected position”.
Krishnan, assisted by advocate Vijay Aggarwal, questioned the need for custodial interrogation in the matter asking “what will they do with <g data-gr-id="34">custodial</g> interrogation? Beat a confession out of him? That would be inadmissible.”
“So do they want to arrest him to make headlines or for the case,” the lawyers asked and added that Bharti was willing to sit across the table with his wife and resolve the issues between them. Bharti’s wife Lipika Mitra, who was present in court, said she was “not interested in any reconciliation” with him as he had mistreated and abused her when they were together.
She claimed that despite knowing she was a diabetic and suffered from high blood pressure, Bharti had beaten her up, tried to strangulate her and even unleashed his dog on her knowing that she was seven months pregnant.
She also alleged before the court that he had neglected her and their two kids and she did not trust his intentions and she did not believe he was capable of change. During the hearing, Krishnan argued that the incident on which the FIR was based had taken place on March 19, <g data-gr-id="30">2013</g> and the complaint was lodged <g data-gr-id="29">only in</g> June 11 this year.