The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Delhi Police, seeking their response to the bail plea that Vibhav Kumar had filed. Kumar is currently behind the bars in Tihar Jail. Kumar faces charges of assaulting Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Women’s Commission Chairperson, Swati Maliwal. The next hearing is on August 7.
During the hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Kumar, argued that the Sessions Court should have granted bail. Singhvi highlighted that the Medical Legal Case (MLC) report describes the injury as non-dangerous, contradicting the assault allegations. Justice Suryakant’s bench expressed surprise at the handling of the case, questioning why Maliwal called emergency number 112 immediately after the incident. Justice Suryakant also remarked that the Chief Minister’s office is not a private residence, questioning the credibility of the case.
Also Rea: Cloudbursts Devastate Himachal Pradesh: 2 Dead, Over 50 Missing
Singhvi argued that the current question is whether Kumar is entitled to bail, noting that the chargesheet came after the order under appeal. He questioned how Kumar could tamper with evidence if the chargesheet was already submitted. Justice Suryakant responded that the court wishes to review the charges rather than read them in court. Singhvi also claimed that the Delhi Police and the Lieutenant Governor (LG) did not register his FIR on the same day. Justice Dipankar Dutta queried Singhvi about his current role, to which Singhvi replied he was a political secretary handling appointments.
Judge Suryakant expressed disbelief that anyone could fabricate the case against Kumar and emphasized that the court should consider moral commitment, even for serious charges. Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan inquired about Kumar’s custody duration, to which Singhvi responded that Kumar has been in custody for 75 days.
Earlier, Delhi HC and Tis Hazari Court has rejected Kumar’s bail Plea. The Delhi High Court’s Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta had cited Kumar’s close association with Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his potential to influence witnesses as reasons for the rejection.