The Delhi High Court on Friday reserved its decision regarding the admissibility of a plea filed by Bhibhav Kumar, an aide to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, who is challenging his arrest in the alleged Swati Maliwal assault case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved judgment on the plea's maintainability following opposition from the Delhi Police regarding the issuance of notice.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the Delhi Police, raised preliminary objections to the petition at the outset.

He argued that the petition is not maintainable because Kumar failed to disclose in his petition that he had previously filed an application before the trial court concerning non-compliance with Section 41A of the CrPC, which was subsequently rejected.

“There is an order passed rejecting their Section 41A. They moved an application to that effect. It was decided by court on May 20. The application was rejected. Technically speaking, they have 90 days time to file revision against the order under Section 397. They have an alternative remedy available to them,” Jain said.

He further contended that since no interim relief was sought in the petition, there was no urgency for the matter to be heard on the last day before the court's summer break. Senior Advocate N Hariharan, representing Kumar, argued that the primary request in the plea is to declare the arrest illegal, emphasizing that the matter involves issues of personal liberty that should not be taken lightly. He added that Kumar's arrest was unnecessary and that the grounds for the arrest were not provided to him.

“The Supreme Court has directed that there should be necessity for arrest and reasons should be recorded in writing. Both are missing. Arrest is not meant for the asking,” he said.

Hariharan further submitted that Kumar was arrested with an oblique motive while his anticipatory bail plea was still being heard by the trial court. He contended that there was no necessity to arrest Kumar, especially since he had voluntarily offered to join the investigation.

In response, Jain submitted that the remand application filed by the Delhi Police did, in fact, mention the grounds for Kumar's arrest.

“The magistrate had gone through the case diary and satisfied himself on the justifiability of immediate arrest,” he said.

The case was initially listed before Justice Navin Chawla today. However, it was transferred to Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma because the complainant, Swati Maliwal, is a Rajya Sabha MP from the Aam Aadmi Party. Justice Sharma was assigned the case due to her jurisdiction over special MP/MLA cases.

Kumar, who was denied bail by the trial court on May 27, argued that his arrest by the Delhi Police is illegal and in gross violation of Section 41A of the CrPC. Initially, he was remanded to five days of police custody, followed by four days of judicial custody. Yesterday, the trial court further remanded him to three days of police custody.

In his plea, Kumar has contended that his arrest violates the Supreme Court rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Amandeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi. Additionally, Kumar has sought compensation for his "illegal arrest."

Kumar has also sought departmental action against the officials involved in his arrest, as per the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The FIR was registered based on a written complaint by Aam Aadmi Party's Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal, and Kumar was arrested on May 18. The Delhi Police alleged that Kumar has consistently been non-cooperative during the investigation and provided evasive answers to their questions.

It was also alleged that he deliberately did not disclose the password of his mobile phone, which is an important piece of information in the probe to unearth the truth.

Maliwal alleged that Kumar assaulted her when she went to meet Kejriwal at his residence on May 13.

Title: Bibhav Kumar v. State