Delhi’s Tis Hazari courtroom on Friday remanded Chief Minister’s aide Bibhav Kumar for 14-day judicial custody in reference to the alleged assault on Aam Aadmi Celebration (AAP) MP Swati Maliwal. Kumar was produced earlier than the courtroom after the three-day police custody granted on Might 28 ended on Friday. He was arrested by the Delhi Police on Might 18, in reference to the case. Metropolitan Justice of the Peace Gaurav Goyal remanded Bibhav Kumar in judicial custody. He shall be produced earlier than the courtroom on June 14.
Delhi Police had sought a 14-day judicial custody of Bibhav Kumar after interrogation. Extra Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the judicial custody of the accused is required for correct investigation, to stop the accused from tampering with proof, and to stop him from making inducement or threats to any witness. Defence counsels Rajat Bhardwaj and Karan Sharma opposed the judicial custody plea. They submitted that the accused is in no place to intervene with an investigation or tampering with the proof. It was additionally acknowledged, “I (Bibhav Kumar) am in no place to induce the witnesses.”
On Might 28, Extra Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava submitted that the accused formatted his cell phone and refused to share the password. It was additionally submitted that police have acquired an interim report from a forensic professional on CCTV footage. The accused is seen coming into the realm the place the DVR was there. He remained there for 20 minutes. There are probabilities of tampering with the proof, APP argued.
APP additionally submitted that the complainant acknowledged that the accused videographed the incident. He was seen with two cellphones.
Defence counsel Rajiv Mohan opposed and submitted that the alleged incident passed off on Might 13, there was no criticism for 3 days, No MLC, FIR was lodged on Might 16, accused was arrested on 18, defence counsel argued. He additionally argued that the proof is being created by defence counsel. Police need custody of the accused until the time he offers a press release that fits their necessities. It’s admitted case that the footage of the place of incidence shouldn’t be accessible, Defence counsel submitted.
On this case, no weapon has been used, the accused’s counsel submitted. Information of cell may be retrieved, defence counsel argued. Why an accused would create proof in opposition to him in order that police can use it, defence counsel added. The accused can’t be compelled to share the password, the accused’s counsel argued. FIR may be very easy however Prosecution is studying between the traces, Defence counsel argued. There is no such thing as a proof on report that the cell was formatted. The very fact of formatting of the telephone shouldn’t be admissible with none report of the forensic report, the defence counsel submitted.
The accused may be examined scientifically, there is no such thing as a requirement of custody, defence counsel Rajiv Mohan argued. There ought to be a compelling floor to hunt additional custody. There is no such thing as a materials with the police to confront the accused with, the defence counsel submitted. AAP has opposed the submissions of the defence and stated that police have recieved an interim report from a forensic professional concerning the clean portion of the footage. There’s a probability of tampering. The accused was utilizing two mobiles, the place the second cell, APP submitted.
Defence counsel argued that this facet has not been investigated as to why the complainant went to the CM home. Additional, he argued that it isn’t a homicide case the place custody is required to recuperate the weapon. There is no such thing as a proof to indicate that the accidents talked about within the MLC have been brought on by the accused, the defence counsel submitted. MLC is of three days after the incident, defence counsel submitted.
