Swati Maliwal Assault Case: Kejriwals Aide Bibhav Kumar Sent To 14 Days Judicial Custody

Delhi’s Tis Hazari courtroom on Friday remanded Chief Minister’s aide Bibhav Kumar for 14-day judicial custody in reference to the alleged assault on Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was produced earlier than the courtroom after the three-day police custody granted on May 28 ended on Friday. He was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18, in reference to the case. Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal remanded Bibhav Kumar in judicial custody. He will probably be produced earlier than the courtroom on June 14. 

Delhi Police had sought a 14-day judicial custody of Bibhav Kumar after interrogation. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the judicial custody of the accused is required for correct investigation, to stop the accused from tampering with proof, and to stop him from making inducement or threats to any witness. Defence counsels Rajat (*14*) and Karan Sharma opposed the judicial custody plea. They submitted that the accused is in no place to intervene with an investigation or tampering with the proof. It was additionally acknowledged, “I (Bibhav Kumar) am in no position to induce the witnesses.”

On May 28, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava submitted that the accused formatted his cell phone and refused to share the password. It was additionally submitted that police have obtained an interim report from a forensic skilled on CCTV footage. The accused is seen coming into the world the place the DVR was there. He remained there for 20 minutes. There are possibilities of tampering with the proof, APP argued.

APP additionally submitted that the complainant acknowledged that the accused videographed the incident. He was seen with two cellphones.

Defence counsel Rajiv Mohan opposed and submitted that the alleged incident happened on May 13, there was no grievance for 3 days, No MLC, FIR was lodged on May 16, accused was arrested on 18, defence counsel argued. He additionally argued that the proof is being created by defence counsel. Police need custody of the accused until the time he offers an announcement that fits their necessities. It is admitted case that the footage of the place of incidence is just not obtainable, Defence counsel submitted.

In this case, no weapon has been used, the accused’s counsel submitted. Data of cell may be retrieved, defence counsel argued. Why an accused would create proof towards him in order that police can use it, defence counsel added. The accused can’t be compelled to share the password, the accused’s counsel argued. FIR could be very easy however Prosecution is studying between the traces, Defence counsel argued. There isn’t any proof on document that the cell was formatted. The truth of formatting of the telephone is just not admissible with none report of the forensic report, the defence counsel submitted.

The accused may be examined scientifically, there is no such thing as a requirement of custody, defence counsel Rajiv Mohan argued. There needs to be a compelling floor to hunt additional custody. There isn’t any materials with the police to confront the accused with, the defence counsel submitted. AAP has opposed the submissions of the defence and mentioned that police have recieved an interim report from a forensic skilled relating to the clean portion of the footage. There is an opportunity of tampering. The accused was utilizing two mobiles, the place the second cell, APP submitted.

Defence counsel argued that this side has not been investigated as to why the complainant went to the CM home. Further, he argued that it isn’t a homicide case the place custody is required to get better the weapon. There isn’t any proof to point out that the accidents talked about within the MLC have been attributable to the accused, the defence counsel submitted. MLC is of three days after the incident, defence counsel submitted.