Bibhav Kumar's arrest necessary as per law in Swati Maliwal case: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The arrest of Arvind Kejriwal's close aide Bibhav Kumar in a case concerning alleged assault on AAP MP Swati Maliwal was "necessary" and police strictly followed the law while doing so, the Delhi High Court has said.

The court, which on Friday dismissed Kumar's petition that claimed his arrest was illegal, said in its written judgment that there was no merit in his plea.

Kumar, currently in judicial custody, allegedly assaulted Maliwal at Kejriwal's official residence on May 13. He was arrested by the Delhi Police on May 18.

In his plea, Kumar had sought a direction to declare his arrest as illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of section 41A (notice of appearance before police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and against the mandate of the law.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in the judgment released on Saturday, observed that after the arrest, the trial court heard Kumar as well as the State before allowing police custody for five days and also noted that while the law gave discretion to the investigating officer to not arrest a person during the investigation, in the present circumstances, there "existed sufficient grounds of arrest of the accused petitioner without notice".

The court said an individual has the "right to liberty" as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the law has been designed to ensure that such liberty is not violated, except by due process of law.

"The facts, as detailed, clearly establish that the arrest was necessary in the given circumstances and has been made in strict compliance of section 41 of CrPC, 1973 by following the principles/guidelines as time and again laid down and emphasised by the apex court in the judgments.... In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed," the court said.

It noted that according to the police, the CCTV footage was found to be "blank" and Kumar was evasive and non-cooperative during his interrogation.

It added that while dismissing Kumar's bail plea, another high court bench had also referred to "suppression of crucial evidence" as only "selective CCTV footage was handed over and the mobile phone was reformatted" by the accused, "which reflected an effort to conceal vital evidence as message was alleged to have been forwarded by the complainant, Swati Maliwal, to the petitioner through WhatsApp on reaching the Chief Minister's Office".

The court said a copy of the remand application was made available to Kumar before the trial court after his arrest, to which he had also filed a reply, and there are criminal antecedents since there is a criminal case pending against him in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

In the remand application, the court noted, the police had alleged that in spite of his termination from the post of private secretary to the chief minister by the competent authority, Kumar was found to continue to work on the premises and was unable to give any answer to explain his authority under which he continued to work.

The FIR against Kumar was registered on May 16 under various Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, including those related to criminal intimidation, assault or criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe, and attempt to commit culpable homicide.

His bail application was earlier dismissed by the trial court and the high court and is pending before the Supreme Court.

The high court denied bail to Kumar on July 12, saying he enjoys "considerable influence" and no ground to grant him the relief was made out.

In the petition against his "illegal" arrest, Kumar had also sought "appropriate compensation" and initiation of departmental action against the erring officials.

The Delhi Police had opposed the petition and submitted that Kumar was not arrested "in haste" and was taken into custody according to law.