New Delhi: A court here on Tuesday granted three days to Delhi Police for custodial interrogation of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar, who is accused of assaulting AAP Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal.
The court said Delhi Police cannot be deprived of their right to recover his mobile phone, which was with him at the time of the alleged attack on the chief minister's official residence on May 13.
"The presence of the accused in the room where the NVRs (Network Video Recorders) are installed has not been denied by him or his counsel. In the view of this Court, the reason for his being there for a substantial period of time is clearly a question to be considered. need to." Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal said that an investigation should be conducted for which custodial interrogation is necessary.NVR is a special computer that records security video surveillance footage in digital format onto a hard drive.
Taking note of Maliwal's specific allegation that Kumar had recorded the incident on a high cell phone, the court said, "The investigating agency cannot be deprived of its right to make best efforts to recover the mobile phone in the possession of the accused. Could."
It allowed the city police's application for Kumar's custody keeping in mind "genuine requirements".
"The application given by the investigating officer (IO) has been partly accepted and the accused has been remanded to police custody for three days," the court said. The court also asked the city police to arrest Kumar on May 31. Asked to present before him.Day.
The court also allowed Kumar's application for medicines and daily meetings with his lawyers, wife and daughter.
During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava said that IPC section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) was added in the case because according to the CCTV footage, Kumar was seen standing in those rooms for about 2 minutes. Was where the NVRs were installed.
However, as initial CCTV footage provided to the police for the relevant period was blank, the APP said, adding, "There is a strong possibility that the accused tampered with the evidence."
Srivastava said that until the FIR was filed and Kumar was arrested, he visited some places outside Delhi and in a video he was seen carrying two mobile phones.
"As per the statement of the complainant, the accused has videographed the incident, which needs to be investigated and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the mobile," the APP said.
Kumar's lawyer opposed Delhi Police's plea for his custodial interrogation, claiming that they have no evidence to convict him and there is no justification for seeking his custody.He claimed that the police wanted to "humiliate" Kumar and "create false evidence at the behest of Maliwal", who is an "influential person".
The lawyer claimed that due to the delay in filing the FIR, Delhi Police now wants to "fill in the gaps" by taking Kumar into custody.
On Monday, Kumar's bail plea was rejected by a sessions court, which said there was no "pre-meditation" by Maliwal in filing the FIR and his allegations could not be "dismissed".
Kumar was arrested on 18 May. He was remanded to police custody for five days the same day by a magistrate court, which found that his anticipatory bail had become void due to his arrest.He was sent to judicial custody for four days last Friday.
The FIR against Kumar was registered on May 16 under various Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, including criminal intimidation, assault with criminal force with intent to disarm a woman and attempt to commit culpable homicide.
The court said Delhi Police cannot be deprived of their right to recover his mobile phone, which was with him at the time of the alleged attack on the chief minister's official residence on May 13.
"The presence of the accused in the room where the NVRs (Network Video Recorders) are installed has not been denied by him or his counsel. In the view of this Court, the reason for his being there for a substantial period of time is clearly a question to be considered. need to." Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal said that an investigation should be conducted for which custodial interrogation is necessary.NVR is a special computer that records security video surveillance footage in digital format onto a hard drive.
Taking note of Maliwal's specific allegation that Kumar had recorded the incident on a high cell phone, the court said, "The investigating agency cannot be deprived of its right to make best efforts to recover the mobile phone in the possession of the accused. Could."
It allowed the city police's application for Kumar's custody keeping in mind "genuine requirements".
"The application given by the investigating officer (IO) has been partly accepted and the accused has been remanded to police custody for three days," the court said. The court also asked the city police to arrest Kumar on May 31. Asked to present before him.Day.
The court also allowed Kumar's application for medicines and daily meetings with his lawyers, wife and daughter.
During the proceedings, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava said that IPC section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) was added in the case because according to the CCTV footage, Kumar was seen standing in those rooms for about 2 minutes. Was where the NVRs were installed.
However, as initial CCTV footage provided to the police for the relevant period was blank, the APP said, adding, "There is a strong possibility that the accused tampered with the evidence."
Srivastava said that until the FIR was filed and Kumar was arrested, he visited some places outside Delhi and in a video he was seen carrying two mobile phones.
"As per the statement of the complainant, the accused has videographed the incident, which needs to be investigated and his custodial interrogation is required to recover the mobile," the APP said.
Kumar's lawyer opposed Delhi Police's plea for his custodial interrogation, claiming that they have no evidence to convict him and there is no justification for seeking his custody.He claimed that the police wanted to "humiliate" Kumar and "create false evidence at the behest of Maliwal", who is an "influential person".
The lawyer claimed that due to the delay in filing the FIR, Delhi Police now wants to "fill in the gaps" by taking Kumar into custody.
On Monday, Kumar's bail plea was rejected by a sessions court, which said there was no "pre-meditation" by Maliwal in filing the FIR and his allegations could not be "dismissed".
Kumar was arrested on 18 May. He was remanded to police custody for five days the same day by a magistrate court, which found that his anticipatory bail had become void due to his arrest.He was sent to judicial custody for four days last Friday.
The FIR against Kumar was registered on May 16 under various Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions, including criminal intimidation, assault with criminal force with intent to disarm a woman and attempt to commit culpable homicide.
