He doesn't seem ashamed: Supreme Court on Bibhav Kumar bail plea in Swati Maliwal assault case

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on the bail plea filed by Bibhav Kumar, the aide of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in connection with his alleged assault of Member of Parliament Swati Maliwal. [Bibhav Kumar v State of NCT of Delhi]..A Bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan stated that it would require time to review the chargesheet."You are right, we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here, look at the FIR. She is crying at the physical condition. Did you have authority? If this kind of person cannot influence witnesses, then who can? Was anyone there in the drawing room to speak against him? He doesn't seem ashamed, we think," the Court said..Kumar has been in jail since he was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18 this year.The incident is said to have occurred on May 13 at Arvind Kejriwal's official residence. Maliwal, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, tried to meet Kejriwal while he was out on interim bail in the Delhi Excise Policy case. As per the criminal complaint, Kumar hit Maliwal in her chest, stomach and pelvic area. Maliwal also claimed that she was threatened with dire consequences if she filed a complaint.AAP denied the allegations and later removed Maliwal from the party's 'star campaigners' list in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.Some videos that surfaced on social media reportedly showed Maliwal having an argument with security personnel and walking out of the Chief Minister's residence..Appearing for Kumar, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the trial court should have granted bail. He pointed out contradictions in Maliwal’s statements regarding the location of the alleged assault.He said that the incident occurred on May 13, but the FIR was lodged on May 16. He further informed the Court that the chargesheet was filed on June 30, after the trial court had denied Kumar bail.After the Court stated that it would require time to review the chargesheet and arrive at a decision, Singhvi stated that Kumar could not tamper with the evidence.Justice Datta asked Singhvi about Kumar’s role at the time of the incident, to which Singhvi clarified that he was the political secretary handling appointments. Justice Kant corrected him, emphasising that Kumar was a government employee.Singhvi argued that the trial, not the bail hearing, was the appropriate forum to examine these issues, stressing that the case did not involve murder.Justice Kant acknowledged that bail is often granted in murder cases but emphasised on the gravity of the FIR and the distress Maliwal described.Eventually, the Court issued notice on the plea and listed the matter for hearing on August 7..The Delhi Police arrested Kumar in connection with the assault case on May 18. He was then remanded to police custody for five days. On May 24, he was sent to judicial custody.A trial court later rejected Kumar's bail plea twice - first on May 27 and then on June 7.The Delhi High Court also denied him bail on July 12, opining that though Kumar happened to be only the personal secretary to the Chief Minister of Delhi, he would still wield considerable power and may influence witnesses.The High Court's denial of bail has now been challenged before the Supreme Court in an appeal filed through Advocate Karan Sharma.