Swati Maliwal Case: Delhi Court Sends Bibhav Kumar To Three-Day Police Custody
The Tis Hazari court on Tuesday granted Delhi Police three days custody for the interrogation of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s aide Bibhav Kumar. He was produced before the court after the expiry of four days of judicial custody.
Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Gaurav Goyal remanded Bibhav Kumar to three days. He is directed to be produced before the court on May 31.
After the hearing, when the order was reserved, the Defence counsel raised an objection over the Additional Public Prosecutor sitting in the chamber of a judge after the order was reserved.
The judge asked who told that APP was sitting in my chamber.
Counsel for the accused himself said that he saw the APP coming out of the judge’s chamber. Counsel also said that he got the complaint that it happened last time.
The court said the defence counsel is levelling allegations against the court.
Counsel said that they are not levelling the allegations but raising their objection. When the counsel complained of the APP sitting inside the chamber for the last one hour.
The court said, it is my order and I will pronounce it.
The Delhi police sought five days of police custody of Bibhav Kumar.
At the outset, Defence counsel Rajat Bhardwaj referred to the High Court rules and requested the court to peruse the case diary, sign it and paginate it.
Delhi police prosecutor submitted that there is an amendment in the Rules related to the case diary. It is duly paginated. The court may peruse it.
A case diary produced before the court by police. Defence counsel requested the court to peruse and sign the case diary.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava submitted that the accused formatted his mobile phone and refused to share the password.
It was also submitted that police have received an interim report of a forensic expert on CCTV footage. The accused is seen entering the area where the DVR were there. He remained there for 20 minutes. There are chances of tampering with the evidence, APP argued.
“We need to take him to some places. We requested five days of police custody,” APP prayed.
APP also submitted that the complainant stated that the accused videographed the incident. He was seen with two mobile phones.
Defence counsel Rajiv Mohan was opposing the remand application.
The alleged incident occurred on 13 May, there was no complaint for three days, No MLC, FIR was lodged on May 16, accused was arrested on 18, defence counsel argued.
He also argued that the evidence is being created by defence counsel. Police want custody of the accused till the time he gives a statement that suits their requirements.
It is admitted case that the footage of the place of occurrence is not available, Defence counsel submitted. In this case, no weapon has been used, the accused’s counsel submitted.
The Defence counsel also argued that the evidence is being created.
It is admitted case that the footage of the place of occurrence is not available. In this case, no weapon has been used, the accused’s counsel submitted. Data of mobile can be retrieved, defence counsel argued
Why an accused would create evidence against him so that police can use it, defence counsel said.
The accused cannot be compelled to share the password, the accused’s counsel argued.
FIR is very simple but Prosecution is reading between the lines, Defence counsel argued.
There is no evidence on record that the mobile was formatted, defence counsel submitted.
The fact of formatting of the phone is not admissible without any report of the forensic report, the defence counsel submitted.
The accused can be examined scientifically, there is not a requirement of custody, defence counsel Rajiv Mohan argued.
There should be a compelling ground to seek further custody. There is no material with the police to confront the accused with, the defence counsel submitted.
APP opposed the submissions of the defence and said that police had received an interim report of a forensic expert regarding the blank portion of the footage. There is a chance of tampering.
The accused was using two mobile, where the second mobile, APP submitted.
Defence counsel argued that this aspect has not been investigated why the complainant went to the CM house. Defence counsel also argued that it is not a murder case where custody to required to recover the weapon.
“There is no evidence to show that the injuries mentioned in the MLC have been caused by the accused,” defence counsel submitted.
MLC is of three days after the incident, defence counsel submitted.
Kumar is accused of assaulting the AAP Rajya Sabha member at the chief minister’s residence on May 13. He was sent to four days’ judicial custody on May 24. (ANI)
For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/
