In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on September 2 granted bail to Bibhav Kumar, the Personal Assistant to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in connection with the Swati Maliwal assault case. The decision came after Kumar had spent over 100 days in custody, and with the trial likely to extend due to the large number of witnesses, the court found that his continued detention would not serve the investigation, which had already been completed.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, carefully reviewed the circumstances surrounding the case. Noting that the prosecution had proposed over 51 witnesses and that the trial would likely be prolonged, the bench observed that continuing Kumar’s detention was unnecessary since the chargesheet had already been filed. The court also pointed out that the injuries reported by Maliwal, which formed the basis of the assault charge, were minor—limited to two bruises further weakening the justification for prolonged custody under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to an attempt to commit culpable homicide.
Justice Bhuyan specifically addressed the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Delhi Police, questioning the opposition to Kumar’s bail given the circumstances. The ASG had argued that witnesses, who might be under Kumar’s influence, should be examined before granting bail, especially since the case involved crimes against women and possible tampering with CCTV footage. However, the bench emphasized that appropriate conditions could be imposed on Kumar’s release to mitigate these concerns.
Conditions For Bail
The Supreme Court granted bail to Bibhav Kumar with several conditions to ensure that the ongoing trial would not be compromised:
- Restrictions on Official Duties: Kumar was prohibited from resuming his role as Personal Secretary to the Delhi Chief Minister or taking up any official position within the CM’s office.
- Prohibited Access: Kumar was not allowed to enter the residence of the Delhi Chief Minister until the private witnesses deemed vulnerable had been examined.
- Witness Examination: The prosecution was instructed to prioritize the examination of these vulnerable witnesses.
- Public Commentary: Kumar was barred from making any public comments about the case.
These conditions, the court noted, were temporary measures aimed at safeguarding the integrity of the trial. Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kumar, objected to the restriction on visiting Kejriwal’s residence, citing Kumar’s long association with the Chief Minister. However, the court clarified that the restriction was not permanent and urged the trial court to expedite the examination of private witnesses, preferably within three months.
Bibhav Kumar Defense
Throughout the legal proceedings, Kumar maintained that the case against him was an abuse of legal processes and a result of a biased investigation. He pointed out that while both he and Maliwal had filed complaints against each other, only Maliwal’s complaint was being actively pursued, suggesting a misuse of power due to her influential position as a Member of Parliament. Despite these claims, the Supreme Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, focusing instead on the procedural aspects in granting bail.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant bail to Bibhav Kumar marks a critical juncture in the case, balancing the need for justice with the protection of individual rights, while ensuring that the trial proceeds without undue influence or delay.
Case Background And Charges
The case against Bibhav Kumar began when Swati Maliwal, a Rajya Sabha MP and a prominent member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), filed a complaint alleging that Kumar had assaulted her on May 13, 2024. The alleged incident took place at the official residence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, where Maliwal had gone to meet him. Following her complaint, an FIR was registered, and Kumar was arrested on May 18. The Delhi Police claimed that Kumar was uncooperative during the investigation and refused to provide crucial information, such as the password to his mobile phone, which was considered vital to the probe.
Despite repeated attempts, Kumar’s bail pleas were denied by both the trial court and the Sessions Court, and later by the Delhi High Court. The High Court, in particular, expressed concerns that Kumar, despite being labeled as merely a personal assistant, wielded considerable influence, which could lead to the tampering of evidence or influencing of witnesses if he were released on bail.
