New Delhi: Court Grants Three-Day Custodial Interrogation for Chief Minister’s Aide
A New Delhi court has granted the Delhi Police three days for custodial interrogation of Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Kumar faces allegations of assaulting Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal.
The court ruled that the Delhi Police must not be deprived of its right to recover the mobile phone Kumar was carrying during the alleged assault at the chief minister’s official residence on May 13.
“The presence of the accused in a room where network video recorders (NVRs) are installed is not denied by him or his lawyer. To the mind of this court, the reason for remaining there for a sufficient time is obviously a question which needs to be investigated for which custodial interrogation is necessary,” stated Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal.
An NVR is a specialized computer that records security video surveillance footage in digital format to a hard drive.
Noting Maliwal’s specific allegation that Kumar had recorded the incident on his cell phone, the court remarked, “The investigating agency cannot be deprived of their rights to make the best effort to recover the mobile that the accused carried.”
The court approved the city police’s application for Kumar’s custody, noting its “bona fide requirements.”
“Application moved by the Investigating Officer (IO) is partly allowed, and the accused is remanded to police custody for three days,” the court declared, directing the police to present Kumar on May 31. The police had initially sought his custody for five days.
The court also approved Kumar’s applications for medicines and daily meetings with his advocates, wife, and daughter.
During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava stated that IPC section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) had been added to the case. According to CCTV footage, Kumar was seen standing for approximately 20 minutes in rooms where NVRs were installed.
The initial CCTV footage provided to the police for the relevant time was, however, blank, suggesting a strong possibility that the accused tampered with the evidence, the APP added.
Srivastava further noted that Kumar had visited some locations outside Delhi between the time the FIR was lodged and his arrest. In one of the videos, Kumar was seen carrying two mobile phones.
“As per the complainant’s statement, the accused has video-graphed the incident, which needs to be probed, and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the mobile,” the APP stated.
Kumar’s counsel opposed the police’s plea for custodial interrogation, arguing that they had no evidence against him and no justification for seeking his custody.
He claimed the police wanted to “humiliate” Kumar and “create false evidence at the instance of Maliwal,” who is an “influential person.”
The advocate also argued that due to the delay in lodging the FIR, the Delhi Police now wanted to “fill the gaps” by taking Kumar into custody.
On Monday, Kumar’s bail plea was dismissed by a sessions court, which noted that there appeared to be no “pre-meditation” by Maliwal in lodging the FIR and that her allegations could not be “swiped away.”
Kumar was arrested on May 18. He was initially sent to police custody for five days by a magisterial court, which observed that his anticipatory bail plea had become infructuous due to his arrest. He was later sent to four-day judicial custody last Friday.
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 intent to disrobe, and attempt to commit culpable homicide.
