The bail plea filed by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s close aide Bibhav Kumar was heard in the Supreme Court today. Bibhav is accused of attacking Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. During the hearing before a bench headed by Justice Suryakant, the court reprimanded Bibhav and said, “Are you not ashamed of behaving like this with a woman?”
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, while advocating for Bibhav, said that the FIR was filed three days later. Maliwal went to the police station but returned without filing an FIR. When the court asked about the charge sheet, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the charge sheet has been filed after the order which we have challenged.
When Singhvi referred to the accused getting bail in two murder cases, Justice Suryakant said, “Don’t refer to those cases because the way the events happened here is a matter of concern for us. Are you not ashamed of behaving like this with a woman? We grant bail to contract killers, murderers too but in this case, what kind of moral firmness is there?”
The court adopted a very strict attitude and issued a notice to Delhi Police and sought a reply on Bibhav’s bail plea. The next hearing will now be held on Wednesday, August 7.
- Nikki Haley when asked if Trump is a good nominee
- Trump vows to bring back free speech, calls ‘fake news’ a ‘threat to this country’
- Belarus’ Aryna Sabalenka fulfills father’s dream by defeating American Jessica Pegula in US Open final
- ‘Numerous’ people shot on Kentucky highway, officials say
- North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson Says He Wants to Outlaw Abortion at Week ‘Zero’ in New Audio Released by Democrats
Singhvi said that on the first day she went (to the police) but did not lodge any complaint, but then after three days the complaint was lodged. Justice Suryakant asked whether Maliwal called 112? If yes, then it proves your claim that she fabricated the story to be false. Singhvi admitted that she had gone to the CM residence.
Justice Suryakant Kant asked whether the CM’s official house is a private residence? Are such rules needed for this? We are surprised, this is not about minor or major injuries. The High Court has heard everything properly.