[ad_1]
Swati Maliwal Assault Case: The Supreme Court while hearing Bhibhav Kumar’s bail petition on Thursday posed several tough questions to his lawyer Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Justice Surya Kant while hearing his plea asked by what authority was Bhibhav Kumar present in Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s residence and if a person like him cannot influence witnesses if given bail, then who can? The bench further asked, given his powerfull position will anyone present in drawing room where the alleged assault took place on the AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal, speak against him?
The bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan heard the matter and issued notice returnable by next Wednesday.
The bench further said that bail is normally granted in such cases, but look at the way the alleged incident took place. “We don’t want to read in open court,” Justice Kant said.
“You are right we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here look at the FIR. She is crying at the physical condition. Did you have authority? If this kind of person cannot influence witness then who can? Was anyone there in the drawing room to speak against him you think?” Justice Kant asked.
Justice Surya Kant further asked if the chief minister’s official house a private residence. “Does it need this kind of rules? We are shocked, this is not about minor or major injuries. The High Court rightfully reproduced everything…” Justice Kant added.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that even the trial court should have granted bail in this. There are contradictions in Maliwal’s statement about where she says she was hit. Please see. Incident is May 13, FIR on May 16. Singhvi further prayed that the court does not treat FIR like a gospel truth.
Singhvi contended that, first day Maliwal went to the police but filed no complaint. But then there days later, she files complaint with the help of a friendly LG and a friendly police officer.
Justice Kant said what about the fact that she called 112? “That belies your claim that she concocted.” The bench further told Singhvi that the Supreme Court is not concerned about AAP’s internal politics.
“We are not on your internal and other politics. Going by criminal process and FIR,” bench said.
Justice Datta also asked Singhvi if Bhibhav Kumar was a secretary or ex secretary to CM on the date of incident.
“I was the political secretary. I handled all appointments,” Singhvi said appearing for Bhibhav Kumar.
“Not political secretary. You are a government employee.” Justice Kant replied.
“My lords are right. I understand the agnst in that.” Singhvi said. He further said that all these considertaions should come at the stage of trial and not for bail and this is not a murder case. “My lords have granted bail to hardened criminals in murder cases as well,” Singhvi said.
To this Justice Kant replied, “you are right we grant bail to murderers and killers. But here look at the FIR. She is crying at the physical condition. Did you have authority? If this kind of person cannot influence witness then who can?.”
[ad_2]
Source link