Bibhav Kumar, an aide to the Chief Minister, was sent to 14-day judicial custody by Delhi’s Tis Hazari court regarding the alleged assault on Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar appeared in court after the three-day police custody granted on May 28 expired. He had been arrested by Delhi Police on May 18 in this case.
Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal has ordered that Bibhav Kumar be held in judicial custody until his next court appearance on June 14. This decision follows a request from the Delhi Police for a 14-day judicial custody of Bibhav Kumar after questioning.
The Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) argued that the accused’s judicial custody is necessary for a thorough investigation, to prevent tampering with evidence, and to avoid any attempts at influencing witnesses through inducement or threats.
Defense counsels Rajat Bhardwaj and Karan Sharma opposed the judicial custody plea. They submitted that the accused is in no position to interfere with an investigation or tampering with the evidence. It was also stated, “I (Bibhav Kumar) am in no position to induce the witnesses.”
On May 28, APP Atul Srivastava stated that the accused formatted his phone and didn’t share the password. Police received a forensic expert’s interim report on CCTV footage, showing the accused entering the DVR area for 20 minutes, raising concerns of evidence tampering. The complainant also mentioned the accused recording the incident with two phones.
Defense counsel Rajiv Mohan argued against the allegations, pointing out the delay in filing a complaint, lack of medical evidence, and timing of the FIR leading to the accused’s arrest. He claimed police fabrication of evidence to obtain a favorable statement. The absence of CCTV footage was highlighted.
The defense emphasized no weapon involvement, the potential retrieval of mobile data, and the accused’s right not to share their password. They deemed the FIR simple and questioned its interpretation by the prosecution, also challenging the phone’s admissibility without a forensic report.
The defense argued that examining the accused scientifically doesn’t need custody; further custody requires strong justification as there’s no material to confront them with. However, the prosecution countered, citing an interim forensic report on footage blanks, alleging tampering due to the accused’s possession of two mobiles, including a second one.