Bibhav Kumar, an aide to the Chief Minister, has been remanded to 14-day judicial custody by the Tis Hazari court on Friday. This follows allegations of his involvement in an assault on Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was presented in court after the conclusion of his three-day police custody, which ended on Friday.
Arrested on May 18, Kumar’s remand was ordered by Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal. He is scheduled to appear before the court again on June 14. The Delhi Police, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava, argued for the 14-day judicial custody, citing the need for thorough investigation, potential tampering of evidence, and the risk of witness intimidation.
Defense counsels Rajat Bhardwaj and Karan Sharma opposed the custody plea, arguing that Kumar poses no threat to the investigation or evidence. They highlighted Kumar’s inability to influence witnesses and denied any wrongdoing regarding his mobile phone. The defense stated, “I (Bibhav Kumar) am in no position to induce the witnesses.”
During the hearing, APP Srivastava claimed that Kumar had formatted his mobile phone and refused to share the password, complicating the investigation. Additionally, an interim forensic report on CCTV footage allegedly showed Kumar in an area where evidence could have been tampered with. The prosecution also noted that the complainant reported Kumar videographing the incident with two mobile phones.
Defense counsel Rajiv Mohan countered, arguing that the incident, which occurred on May 13, saw no complaint filed for three days, with the FIR lodged on May 16 and Kumar’s arrest on May 18. He contended that the prosecution’s claims were speculative and lacked concrete evidence, emphasizing that no weapon was involved and the accused could not be compelled to share his phone password.
Mohan further argued that the police were seeking custody to coerce a statement from Kumar. He challenged the admissibility of the phone formatting allegation without a forensic report and stressed that custody was unnecessary for scientific examination of the accused.
In response, APP reiterated the potential for evidence tampering and highlighted the use of two mobile phones by Kumar, suggesting further investigation was required. The defense maintained that the case did not warrant extended custody, given the nature of the alleged crime and the available evidence.
Comments