Delhi police also suspected a larger conspiracy in Swati Maliwal case, considering the “contrarian” public stand taken by responsible public servants in the days following the alleged incident. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Delhi Police have claimed in the Supreme Court that Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and his aide, Bibhav Kumar, accused of “brutally” assaulting Aam Aadmi Party’s Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal at the Chief Minister’s residence, spent a “significant” period of time together at the “scene of the crime” immediately after the incident.
The police also suspected a larger conspiracy at play, considering the “contrarian” public stand taken by responsible public servants in the days following the alleged incident. Further, the police voiced suspicion about the selective leaks of the CCTV camera footage to the media before the devices could be seized.
Bail petition
The response followed a plea for bail by Mr. Kumar. He is accused of assaulting Ms. Maliwal on May 13 at Mr. Kejriwal’s official residence. An FIR was registered against Mr. Kumar on May 16 for various offences, including criminal intimidation, assault, or using criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe and attempt to commit culpable homicide. He was arrested on May 18.
The nine-page police affidavit reminded repeatedly that the brutal attack took place at a highly sensitive location, the Chief Minister’s residence. The residence was a place where the general public came on a daily basis. The incident had gravely impacted the public. Ms. Maliwal herself had been deeply traumatised and could not leave home for four days after the alleged incident.
Complaint ‘concocted’
The police said Mr. Kumar’s complaint against Ms. Maliwal, accusing her of illegal entry and creating a security breach and interfering with the official duties of the security personnel, was concocted. The police said Mr. Kumar had a criminal case against him for attacking a public servant. He was powerful and influential. Given bail, he would tamper with the evidence and sway witnesses to his side.
In the previous hearing, the court had asked if the Chief Minister’s residence was a “private bungalow”. “Is this kind of ‘goon’ supposed to work in the CM’s residence?” the top court had asked Mr. Kumar’s counsel.
