The Tis Hazari Court in Delhi has sent Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide, Bibhav Kumar, to five-day police custody after he was arrested in connection with AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal’s assault case.

Bibhav Kumar was produced before the court late on Saturday night.
Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal remanded Bibhav Kumar to five-day police custody for questioning. He is scheduled to be produced before the court on May 23, after the expiration of his remand.
Delhi Police had sought seven days of custody for Bibhav Kumar, who was produced before the court around 9.15 pm. He was arrested by Delhi police at 4.15 pm.
Delhi police have registered a case under sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 354B (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to disrobe), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), and 509 (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) of the Indian Penal Code.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava argued over the custody of Bibhav Kumar.
“He has been arrested today. The complainant is a public figure and an AAP MP,” the APP submitted. “She was brutally beaten and attacked in sensitive parts,” he added.
“We asked for the DVR, which was provided on a pen drive. The footage was found to be blank,” APP argued.
APP submitted that an iPhone has been given to the police, but now the accused is not sharing the password and that the phone has been formatted.
APP Srivastava submitted that the accused was present even today at the place of the occurrence.
“The accused has influence over the witnesses. In this case, footage was deleted, the phone was formatted, and the accused himself reached the place of occurrence,” the APP submitted.
The accused has not shared the password for his phone. He has to be taken to the expert to get the phone password. The phone has been formatted, and he has been taken to Mumbai, APP Srivastava added.
“He was terminated from the service. It is a question of how he was able to reach the CM’s residence,” the APP submitted, adding that we have to find out whether he is connected to anti-social elements or not.
Defense counsel Rajiv Mohan argued and submitted that the incident occurred on May 13. There is a delay of three days. “Swati Maliwal visited the CM’s residence camp office at 9 AM on May 13. There was neither permission nor any prior appointment,” the defense counsel submitted.
The defence counsel submitted that her visit to the CM house was on her own accord. There was no allure for her to visit the CM house. There is no mention in this regard.
Defense counsel submitted that the CM is a public figure, but not all the time.
“The alleged fact can be verified by the security personnel who are of the Delhi police,” the defense counsel submitted.
Defense counsel further argued that the police are distorting the facts. The complainant made a PCR call, and police were present outside the CM’s residence.
The defense counsel submitted that what stopped her from filing a complaint the same day of the assault. The complaint was lodged on May 16. “She made a PCR call but did not wait for the response. Why did Maliwal not report the matter to the police if she was beaten?” the defense counsel submitted.
The PCR call was made from inside the CM’s house, which is the VIP area. PCR reached the spot, but she did not ask to be taken to the hospital, the defense counsel submitted. “PCR calls are recorded, and police personnel attending file a report. She also visited the police station, Civil lines and narrated the incident to the SHO. There is no need for seven-day custody as this case is not the use of a weapon,” the defence counsel submitted.
“The complainant did not make a complaint to the SHO. There is no mention of any treatment at any private hospital in four days,” the defense counsel added further.
“The complainant filed a complaint after three days, but she did not take treatment for her alleged injuries. Two DD entries were made by the police, and there is no reporting on these two till May 16. In FIR, it is mentioned that there is no delay. But what happened on two DDs is not mentioned anywhere,” the defense counsel submitted.
“There is no mention of any medical documents, not even an MLC, on record,” the defense counsel submitted.
“The incident pertains to May 13, but the complaint was lodged on May 16 as the complainant thought she committed a trespass in the CM’s house. She made a call from there. There is no CCTV camera in my (CM) drawing room or cameras on the gate,” the defense counsel submitted.
“It is not in our control, police can get the data from the department,” the defense counsel submitted.
Delhi police countered the submission and said the CCTV footage was under the control of PWD.
There is no CCTV in the drawing room. CCTV data can be collected only from the main gate to the residential area, the defense counsel submitted.
“Can I (Bibhav) be compelled to give the password of my phone?” the defense counsel submitted.
The accused cannot be compelled to give a password, the defense counsel submitted.
“If there are no allegations of messing with WhatsApp from the accused, then what is significant about the formatting of the phone?” the defense counsel submitted.
The defense counsel submitted, “The accused was arrested today at 4.15 pm in haste as I filed an anticipatory bail. A copy of the anticipatory bail application was supplied to the police at 2.00 pm in advance. There was no requirement of arrest. Two DD entries were not inquired into.”
“It is submitted that the arrest in this case is not justified, therefore the remand should not be granted,” said defense counsel Rajiv Mohan.
“No ground of arrest was mentioned. The accused was arrested only to render the anticipatory bail application infructuous,” defense counsel Shadan Farasat submitted.
“The lady was beaten by a person whom she had known for a long time. She was disturbed by the goonda behaviour, and it took her three days to gather her courage,” Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava rebutted.
“The complainant was not a trespasser, but the accused is himself a trespasser,” APP rebutted.
“SHO attended the call himself and went to the CM house,” APP Atul Srivastava submitted. Speaking to the media after the Court’s decision, additional public prosecutor, Atul Srivastava, said that the accused was produced and a request was made by the police for the grant of seven-day custody remand, which had been argued extensively on behalf of the defense as well.
“After considering the entire aspect, the Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to grant five days of police custody remand. One of the grounds for seeking custody was that he was to be taken to Mumbai for a proper investigation, and that has been considered,” Srivastava said.
Following the court’s decision, Rishikesh Kumar, the advocate and counsel for Bibhav Kumar, said that the police filed an application seeking seven days of remand. And out of the seven days of remand, five days of remand have been ordered, after which he will be produced on May 23.
Speaking about the relief granted to the accused, the defense counsel said, “Bibhav Kumar has been allowed to meet his lawyer during the investigation and the family members, and if any medicines are required, he will be duly supplied.”-ANI