Delhi Court Denies Bail to Kejriwal’s Aide in Swati Maliwal Assault Case

A Delhi court recently denied the bail plea of Bibhav Kumar, an aide to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, in a case involving the assault of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was accused of assaulting Maliwal at the Chief Minister’s residence on May 13 and was placed in judicial custody on May 24.

The court rejected Kumar’s bail request, emphasizing that Maliwal’s allegations must be taken seriously and that there was a risk of Kumar influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court also mentioned that the delay in registering the FIR (First Information Report) did not significantly impact the case, as Maliwal’s injuries were documented in a medico-legal certificate four days after the incident. The court stated that if the incident were premeditated, the FIR would have been filed immediately.

Kumar plans to appeal the decision in the Delhi High Court. According to Maliwal’s allegations, while she was waiting to meet Kejriwal at his official residence, Kumar screamed at her, threatened her, used abusive language, and brutally assaulted her by dragging and banging her head on a table.

During the bail hearing, Kumar’s lawyer argued that the allegations were premeditated and false, meant to defame him because Maliwal believed he was responsible for her not meeting the Chief Minister. The lawyer also noted that Maliwal chose the location of the alleged assault because there were no CCTV cameras. In response, Maliwal broke down in court, claiming that AAP had deployed its resources to tarnish her image, holding press conferences against her, and labeling Kumar as abnormal.

The Delhi Police, in their report, described the incident as a serious case where the brutal assault could have been fatal. They accused Kumar of not cooperating with the investigation and being evasive in his responses. The police noted the severity of the case, as it involved the assault of a Member of Parliament, and highlighted Kumar’s lack of cooperation during questioning.

Recently, Kumar was taken to Mumbai to recover data from his phone, which he had allegedly formatted before his arrest. Police suspect that he transferred the data to someone or a device in Mumbai before wiping the phone. His phones, laptop, and CCTV recordings from Kejriwal’s house have been sent for forensic examination.

The National Commission for Women (NCW) also weighed in, claiming that Kumar was called to the Chief Minister’s residence after Maliwal arrived. The commission demanded details on who called him and called for an investigation into the call records of all involved parties, including the Chief Minister.

The AAP has dismissed Maliwal’s allegations, accusing her of being used by the BJP to defame Arvind Kejriwal ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. The party insists that Maliwal’s claims are politically motivated and intended to damage Kejriwal’s reputation.

In summary, Bibhav Kumar remains in custody as the court takes Maliwal’s allegations seriously, citing potential risks of witness tampering and evidence manipulation. The case has drawn significant attention, with both political and legal implications, as investigations continue and appeals are planned.

Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal till 1 June

The Supreme Court swiftly granted interim bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal until June 1, 2024. This decision follows Kejriwal’s arrest on March 21, 2024, by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Delhi Liquor Policy case. However, he is expected to return to judicial custody on June 2, just before the announcement of the 2024 Lok Sabha Election results.

Here’s a summary of the legal proceedings leading up to this decision:

Upon his arrest, Kejriwal contested the legality of his detention under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. His legal counsel, Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi, argued that the arrest was unjustified due to inconsistencies in witness statements and raised concerns about the timing of Kejriwal’s arrest, suggesting it was politically motivated.

Last week, the Supreme Court hinted at the possibility of granting interim bail, considering the imminent Delhi Lok Sabha Elections scheduled to commence on May 25, 2024.

During this week’s hearing, the Enforcement Directorate, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, argued against granting bail. They cited new evidence uncovered during the investigation and Kejriwal’s alleged non-cooperation, including his failure to respond to nine summonses over six months.

The court expressed apprehensions about the potential impact of granting bail on Kejriwal’s ability to fulfill his duties as Chief Minister.

Following today’s decision, Mehta expressed dissatisfaction, highlighting Kejriwal’s purported lack of cooperation with the investigation. However, Justice Sanjiv Khanna downplayed the significance of a few additional days of freedom, considering Kejriwal’s prolonged custody since March.

Yesterday, the Enforcement Directorate filed an affidavit opposing interim bail for Kejriwal, arguing against granting preferential treatment to a political leader during election campaigning. Kejriwal responded with a counter-affidavit, criticizing the timing of the Enforcement Directorate’s filing.

The Supreme Court is yet to specify any conditions for the interim bail, with a detailed order anticipated later today.

In essence, while Kejriwal has been granted interim bail until June 1, 2024, his return to judicial custody is expected before the announcement of the Lok Sabha Election results.

Arvind Kejriwal’s Judicial Custody in ED Case Extended Until May 7th

In recent news, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s time in judicial custody has been extended until May 7. This decision was made by Special Judge Kaveri Baweja of the Rouse Avenue Court. Kejriwal was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21 in connection with a money laundering case related to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.

The arrest came shortly after his plea for protection from arrest was denied by the Delhi High Court. Since then, he has been in custody, with his time extended multiple times. Initially, he was remanded to ED custody till March 28, then further extended, and eventually put into judicial custody till April 15, which has now been extended till May 7.

The case revolves around allegations of irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy for 2021-22. It’s said that a criminal conspiracy was orchestrated by AAP leaders, including former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, along with some unnamed private individuals or entities, during the formulation of the policy. The alleged conspiracy aimed to benefit certain licensees and conspirators after the tender process, exploiting intentional loopholes in the policy.

Kejriwal’s arrest is significant as it’s the first time a sitting Chief Minister in India has been imprisoned while in office. Several other AAP leaders, including Sisodia and Member of Parliament Sanjay Singh, have also been arrested in connection with the case. Singh, however, obtained bail from the Supreme Court on April 2.

This legal saga has involved numerous rounds of litigation before both the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, in addition to hearings at the trial court in the Rouse Avenue Court complex in Delhi. Recently, the Delhi High Court dismissed Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the ED and upheld the various remand orders, including the one that sent him to judicial custody.

Overall, the case has drawn considerable attention due to its political implications and the involvement of high-profile figures. As it continues to unfold, it sheds light on the complexities of governance and the legal system in India.

Delhi High Court Inquires About Why Arvind Kejriwal Receive Mangoes and Sweets from Family

In a recent development, a Delhi Court has expressed confusion over why Arvind Kejriwal, the Chief Minister of Delhi, received mangoes, sweets, and aloo puri from his family while in jail, despite his medical condition. Kejriwal, who is diabetic, has a prescribed diet that doesn’t include such foods.

The court had previously allowed Kejriwal to have home-cooked meals in prison due to his health condition. However, it was discovered that these meals sometimes didn’t follow the prescribed diet. The court questioned both Kejriwal’s family for sending inappropriate food and the jail authorities for allowing it.

The judge remarked that the jail authorities were aware of the food Kejriwal was receiving but didn’t take any action to ensure compliance with the court’s order and medical prescriptions. The court rejected Kejriwal’s request to consult his doctor daily via video conference, noting that the jail authorities should take care of his health.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) argued that Kejriwal might be intentionally consuming foods like mangoes and sweets to spike his sugar levels and use it as a basis for bail. The court examined this claim and found that mangoes were not specifically prescribed by Kejriwal’s doctor, unlike mushrooms, which were medically recommended.

Regarding Kejriwal’s request for insulin administration, the court noted discrepancies between his medical report and the jail doctor’s report. The jail authorities stated that Kejriwal couldn’t decide on insulin administration himself and hadn’t been taking it since February 2024.

The court emphasized that Kejriwal should not receive special treatment compared to other inmates, as the jail authorities are equipped to manage his health, including monitoring his blood sugar levels and blood pressure.

Kejriwal is currently in judicial custody due to the Delhi liquor policy case and has appealed his arrest to the Supreme Court.

Overall, the court highlighted the importance of adhering to medical prescriptions and ensuring that inmates, including public figures like Kejriwal, receive proper care while in custody.

Delhi High Court Rejects Third Petition to Remove Arvind Kejriwal as Chief Minister, Labels it a ‘Publicity Interest Petition’

The Delhi High Court had some stern words for a former member of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Sandeep Kumar, who tried to get Arvind Kejriwal ousted as Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi. Kumar’s move came after Kejriwal got arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to the Delhi excise policy scam.

The Court wasn’t too pleased with Kumar’s petition, especially since two similar ones had already been thrown out earlier by the High Court. Justice Subramonium Prasad, the judge overseeing the case, criticized Kumar for wasting the Court’s time with what he called a “publicity interest petition.” He even suggested that Kumar should be slapped with hefty fines for his actions.

This wasn’t the first time the Court had to deal with attempts to remove Kejriwal from his position. Just a few days before Kumar’s attempt, another person named Surjit Singh Yadav had filed a similar petition, but that too was rejected. The Court had then emphasized that such matters are usually left for the executive and the President to handle, not the Court.

Then came another attempt from Vishnu Gupta, the president of the Hindu Sena, who also tried to get Kejriwal ousted. But the Court wasn’t swayed and essentially said that it’s up to Kejriwal himself whether he wants to continue as CM or not. However, they hinted that sometimes personal interests need to take a backseat to national interests.

Now, Kumar’s petition was the third of its kind. He argued that Kejriwal, despite being unfit for the job, was still holding onto the position of CM, causing all sorts of problems, including constitutional complications and violating people’s Right to Life in Delhi.

Kumar wanted the Court to issue what’s called a “writ of quo warranto” against Kejriwal. This basically means demanding Kejriwal to prove why he should be allowed to hold the position of CM under the Constitution. Kumar then asked for Kejriwal to be removed from his office, whether it’s with or without looking back at his past actions.

In simpler terms, the Court was not amused by Kumar’s attempt to remove Kejriwal as CM, especially since similar attempts had already been shut down before. They made it clear that such matters are usually left to the executive branch, not the courts. So, for now, Kejriwal remains the CM of Delhi, and Kumar’s efforts didn’t get him very far.