New Delhi [India], Delhi's Tis Hazari Court has sent Vibhav Kumar, a close aide of Chief Minister Arvin Kejriwal, to five-day police custody after his arrest in the case of assault on AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. Vibhav Kumar was presented in the court late Saturday night. Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal sent Vibhav Kumar to five-day police custody for questioning. After his remand ends, he will be presented in court on March 23.
Delhi Police had sought seven-day custody of Vibhav Kumar, who was produced in the court at around 9.15 pm. He was arrested by Delhi Police at 4.15 pm. Delhi Police has booked her under sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 354B (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe her), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation). A case has been registered under.and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the dignity of a woman). Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava argued for Bibhav Kumar's custody. "He has been arrested today. The complainant is a public figure and AAP MP, the AAP said. "He was brutally beaten and his sensitive parts were attacked," he said."We asked for the DVR, which was made available on a pen while driving. APP argued that the footage was found blank. APP submitted that an iPhone has been given to the police, but now the accused is not sharing the password and the phone APP Shrivastava submitted that the accused was present at the spot even today “The accused has influence over the witnesses. In this case, the footage was deleted, the phone was formatted, and the accused himself reached the scene of the incident,'' APP submitted.The accused has not shared the password for his phone. He will have to take it to an expert to get the phone password. The phone has been formatted, and he has been taken to Mumbai, APP Srivastava said, adding, "He has been dismissed from service. The question is how he was able to reach the Chief Minister's residence," APP said. We have to find out whether he is associated with anti-social elements or not,” defense lawyer Rajeev Mohan argued and said the incident occurred on May 13.Defense counsel said, “Swati Maliwal visited the CM Awas Camp office at 9 am on May 13. There was neither permission nor any prior appointment.'' The visit to the Chief Minister's house was with his consent. There was no attraction for him in this regard. The defense lawyer said that the Chief Minister is a public figure, but not all the time the facts can be verified by the security personnel of Delhi Police,'' the defense lawyer said.The defense lawyer further argued that the police were distorting the facts. The complainant made a PCR call, and the police were present outside the CM's residence. The defense lawyer asked who stopped him from filing the complaint on the same day of the attack. The complaint was filed on May 16. “He called the PC but did not wait for a response.If he was beaten then why did Maliwal not report the matter to the police?" the defense counsel submitted. The PCR call was made from inside the CM residence, which is a VIP area. The defense counsel submitted that the PC Reached the spot, but did not ask to be taken to hospital." PCR calls are recorded, and the attending policemen file reports. She also went to the police station, Civil Lines and informed the SHO about the incident. There is no need for seven days' custody as this case does not involve the use of any weapon.,” the defense counsel submitted. The defense counsel further said, "The complainant did not complain to the SHO. There is no mention of treatment in any private hospital in the last four days." “The complainant lodged a complaint after three days, but he did not get treatment for his alleged injuries. Two DD entries were made by the police, and as of May 16, no report has been made on either of them.In the FIR, it is mentioned that there is no delay. But what happened on the two DDs is not mentioned anywhere,” the defense lawyer said. "There is no mention of any medical document on record, even the MLC," the defense counsel said. “The incident took place on May 13, but the complaint was filed on May 16 because the complainant felt that he had encroached on the CM's house. He called from there.There is no CCTV camera in my (CM) drawing room or camera at th gate,” the defense counsel submitted. “It is not in our control, the police can get the data from the department,” the defense counsel said. Delhi Police opposed the plea and said that the CCTV footage is under the control of PWD. There is no CCTV in the drawing room. The defense counsel said that CCTV data can be collected only from the main gate to the residential area. "Can I (Vibhav) be forced to give my phone password?" the defense counsel submitted.The defense said that the accused cannot be forced to give the password. "If there is no allegation of the accused tampering with WhatsApp, what is the point of formatting the phone?" The defense was presented. The defense lawyer said, "The accused was arrested today at 4.15 pm because I had filed anticipatory bail. A copy of the anticipatory bail application was already given to the police at 2.00 pm. There was no need for arrest." .Two DD entries were not scrutinized." Defense lawyer Rajeev Mohan said, "It is submitted that arrest is not justified in this case, hence remand should not be granted." Defense lawyer Shadan Farasa said. , "No grounds were given for the arrest. The accused was arrested only to make the anticipatory bail plea futile." Additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava refuted, saying, "The woman was beaten by a person whom she knew for a long time.She was troubled by the hooligan behavior and it took her three days to muster up the courage." APP refuted, "The complainant was not a trespasser, but the accused himself is a trespasser." APP Atul Srivastava said, "The SHO himself attended the call and Went to CM House."
Speaking to the media after the court's verdict, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava said that the accused was produced and a request was made to the police to grant seven-day custodial remand, which was largely opposed by the defence. Was debated. Well.Srivastava said, "After considering the entire aspect, the Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to grant five-day police custody remand. One of the grounds for seeking custody was that he was to be taken to Mumbai for proper investigation and considering Has gone." Said. After the court's decision, Vibhav Kumar's lawyer and lawyer Hrishikesh Kumar said that the police has filed an application demanding seven days' remand. And out of seven days' remand, five days' remand has been ordered, after which he will be produced on May 23. Regarding the relief given to the accused, the defense lawyer said, "Vibhav Kumar has been allowed to meet his lawyer. During the investigation, family members will be met and if any medicine is required, it will be supplied to him promptly." Will.''
Delhi Police had sought seven-day custody of Vibhav Kumar, who was produced in the court at around 9.15 pm. He was arrested by Delhi Police at 4.15 pm. Delhi Police has booked her under sections 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), 354B (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to disrobe her), 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation). A case has been registered under.and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (word, gesture, or act intended to insult the dignity of a woman). Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava argued for Bibhav Kumar's custody. "He has been arrested today. The complainant is a public figure and AAP MP, the AAP said. "He was brutally beaten and his sensitive parts were attacked," he said."We asked for the DVR, which was made available on a pen while driving. APP argued that the footage was found blank. APP submitted that an iPhone has been given to the police, but now the accused is not sharing the password and the phone APP Shrivastava submitted that the accused was present at the spot even today “The accused has influence over the witnesses. In this case, the footage was deleted, the phone was formatted, and the accused himself reached the scene of the incident,'' APP submitted.The accused has not shared the password for his phone. He will have to take it to an expert to get the phone password. The phone has been formatted, and he has been taken to Mumbai, APP Srivastava said, adding, "He has been dismissed from service. The question is how he was able to reach the Chief Minister's residence," APP said. We have to find out whether he is associated with anti-social elements or not,” defense lawyer Rajeev Mohan argued and said the incident occurred on May 13.Defense counsel said, “Swati Maliwal visited the CM Awas Camp office at 9 am on May 13. There was neither permission nor any prior appointment.'' The visit to the Chief Minister's house was with his consent. There was no attraction for him in this regard. The defense lawyer said that the Chief Minister is a public figure, but not all the time the facts can be verified by the security personnel of Delhi Police,'' the defense lawyer said.The defense lawyer further argued that the police were distorting the facts. The complainant made a PCR call, and the police were present outside the CM's residence. The defense lawyer asked who stopped him from filing the complaint on the same day of the attack. The complaint was filed on May 16. “He called the PC but did not wait for a response.If he was beaten then why did Maliwal not report the matter to the police?" the defense counsel submitted. The PCR call was made from inside the CM residence, which is a VIP area. The defense counsel submitted that the PC Reached the spot, but did not ask to be taken to hospital." PCR calls are recorded, and the attending policemen file reports. She also went to the police station, Civil Lines and informed the SHO about the incident. There is no need for seven days' custody as this case does not involve the use of any weapon.,” the defense counsel submitted. The defense counsel further said, "The complainant did not complain to the SHO. There is no mention of treatment in any private hospital in the last four days." “The complainant lodged a complaint after three days, but he did not get treatment for his alleged injuries. Two DD entries were made by the police, and as of May 16, no report has been made on either of them.In the FIR, it is mentioned that there is no delay. But what happened on the two DDs is not mentioned anywhere,” the defense lawyer said. "There is no mention of any medical document on record, even the MLC," the defense counsel said. “The incident took place on May 13, but the complaint was filed on May 16 because the complainant felt that he had encroached on the CM's house. He called from there.There is no CCTV camera in my (CM) drawing room or camera at th gate,” the defense counsel submitted. “It is not in our control, the police can get the data from the department,” the defense counsel said. Delhi Police opposed the plea and said that the CCTV footage is under the control of PWD. There is no CCTV in the drawing room. The defense counsel said that CCTV data can be collected only from the main gate to the residential area. "Can I (Vibhav) be forced to give my phone password?" the defense counsel submitted.The defense said that the accused cannot be forced to give the password. "If there is no allegation of the accused tampering with WhatsApp, what is the point of formatting the phone?" The defense was presented. The defense lawyer said, "The accused was arrested today at 4.15 pm because I had filed anticipatory bail. A copy of the anticipatory bail application was already given to the police at 2.00 pm. There was no need for arrest." .Two DD entries were not scrutinized." Defense lawyer Rajeev Mohan said, "It is submitted that arrest is not justified in this case, hence remand should not be granted." Defense lawyer Shadan Farasa said. , "No grounds were given for the arrest. The accused was arrested only to make the anticipatory bail plea futile." Additional public prosecutor Atul Srivastava refuted, saying, "The woman was beaten by a person whom she knew for a long time.She was troubled by the hooligan behavior and it took her three days to muster up the courage." APP refuted, "The complainant was not a trespasser, but the accused himself is a trespasser." APP Atul Srivastava said, "The SHO himself attended the call and Went to CM House."
Speaking to the media after the court's verdict, Additional Public Prosecutor Atul Srivastava said that the accused was produced and a request was made to the police to grant seven-day custodial remand, which was largely opposed by the defence. Was debated. Well.Srivastava said, "After considering the entire aspect, the Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to grant five-day police custody remand. One of the grounds for seeking custody was that he was to be taken to Mumbai for proper investigation and considering Has gone." Said. After the court's decision, Vibhav Kumar's lawyer and lawyer Hrishikesh Kumar said that the police has filed an application demanding seven days' remand. And out of seven days' remand, five days' remand has been ordered, after which he will be produced on May 23. Regarding the relief given to the accused, the defense lawyer said, "Vibhav Kumar has been allowed to meet his lawyer. During the investigation, family members will be met and if any medicine is required, it will be supplied to him promptly." Will.''
