Swati Maliwal assault: SC grills Kejriwal aide Kumar, asks if ‘goon’ entered CM’s home

NEW DELHI: “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 AAP 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.

The bench expressed concern over the incident, criticising Bibhav Kumar’s behavior as if a “goon” had invaded the CM’s residence. Singhvi noted the victim initially went to the police station but only filed an FIR three days later. The bench was shocked by Kumar’s assault on her despite her informing him of 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.”

The bench noted it didn’t want to read the case records in open court but criticised the accused for continuing to assault despite the victim’s pleas due to her physical condition. The bench questioned if power had gone to his head. Singhvi argued that Kumar, seeking bail, cannot tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The bench responded skeptically, citing records suggesting no one dared speak against him.

Singhvi stated Kumar, a former government servant now a political advisor, has been in custody for 75 days, and should have received bail earlier. The bench highlighted the severity of Kumar’s actions at the CM’s residence. The high court denied bail, citing the accused’s “considerable influence” and potential risks of witness tampering or evidence interference.