New Delhi: The Delhi Police on Monday objected in the Delhi High Court to a plea by Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar, challenging his arrest in connection with the alleged assault on AAP MP Swati Maliwal.
The police claimed that Kumar was not arrested "in haste" and that he had made no mistake.
Maintaining that his arrest was illegal, Kumar's lawyer said that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that he was arrested on May 18, the day he submitted an application to the police to voluntarily join the investigation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after hearing the arguments of both sides, reserved the order.
During the hearing, the lawyer representing Kumar argued that he had been illegally detained at the chief minister's residence without prior notice.
The Delhi Police lawyer argued that this was not the first criminal case filed against Kumar.
The Noida police had earlier lodged an FIR against him, he claimed.
He argued that Kumar formatted his mobile phone, which amounted to tampering with evidence, adding that the accused leveled serious allegations against the investigation agency and if such things were allowed, it would be difficult for the authorities to proceed with the matter in future.
Kumar, currently in judicial custody, allegedly assaulted AAP Rajya Sabha member Maliwal at Kejriwal's official residence on May 13. He was arrested on May 18.
The FIR against Kumar was registered on May 16 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal intimidation, destruction of evidence, assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of stripping her and attempting to commit culpable homicide. .
Kumar, in his plea, also sought an order declaring his arrest as illegal and in grave violation of the provisions of Section 41A (notice to appear before a police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and against the mandate of law. .
He claimed that he was detained for an "oblique motive" while his bail application was pending in the trial court, in violation of his fundamental rights and the law.
Kumar demanded "adequate compensation" for his "illegal" arrest and initiation of departmental action against the wrong officials involved in the decision-making of his arrest.
On June 7, the Tis Hazari court refused to grant bail to Kumar, saying he was facing "serious and grave" charges and there were fears he could influence witnesses.
Kumar's first bail plea was dismissed on May 27 by another sessions court, which said there did not appear to be any "premeditation" on Maliwal's part in getting the FIR lodged and that his allegations could not be " erased".
The police claimed that Kumar was not arrested "in haste" and that he had made no mistake.
Maintaining that his arrest was illegal, Kumar's lawyer said that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and that he was arrested on May 18, the day he submitted an application to the police to voluntarily join the investigation.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after hearing the arguments of both sides, reserved the order.
During the hearing, the lawyer representing Kumar argued that he had been illegally detained at the chief minister's residence without prior notice.
The Delhi Police lawyer argued that this was not the first criminal case filed against Kumar.
The Noida police had earlier lodged an FIR against him, he claimed.
He argued that Kumar formatted his mobile phone, which amounted to tampering with evidence, adding that the accused leveled serious allegations against the investigation agency and if such things were allowed, it would be difficult for the authorities to proceed with the matter in future.
Kumar, currently in judicial custody, allegedly assaulted AAP Rajya Sabha member Maliwal at Kejriwal's official residence on May 13. He was arrested on May 18.
The FIR against Kumar was registered on May 16 under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal intimidation, destruction of evidence, assault or criminal force against a woman with the intention of stripping her and attempting to commit culpable homicide. .
Kumar, in his plea, also sought an order declaring his arrest as illegal and in grave violation of the provisions of Section 41A (notice to appear before a police officer) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and against the mandate of law. .
He claimed that he was detained for an "oblique motive" while his bail application was pending in the trial court, in violation of his fundamental rights and the law.
Kumar demanded "adequate compensation" for his "illegal" arrest and initiation of departmental action against the wrong officials involved in the decision-making of his arrest.
On June 7, the Tis Hazari court refused to grant bail to Kumar, saying he was facing "serious and grave" charges and there were fears he could influence witnesses.
Kumar's first bail plea was dismissed on May 27 by another sessions court, which said there did not appear to be any "premeditation" on Maliwal's part in getting the FIR lodged and that his allegations could not be " erased".
