The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi):The investigation into the alleged assault on a prominent public figure and Member of Parliament has taken a significant turn as the court granted five days of police custody to the accused, Bibhav Kumar. Metropolitan Magistrate Gaurav Goyal, while remanding Kumar to police custody, observed that the absence of video footage in the pendrive provided by the Junior Engineer (JE) to the Investigating Officer (IO) and the formatting of the accused’s mobile phone “speaks volumes” about the case.
The court’s decision came after considering the submissions made by both the prosecution and the defense, as well as the documents placed on record by the Delhi Police. The court emphasized the necessity of police custody, stating that the accused needs to be taken to Mumbai and other parts of Delhi for further investigation, which would not be possible without police custody remand.
In his order, MM Gaurav Goyal noted, “Every investigation is a quest to find the truth, and it is the ultimate goal of every investigation.” However, the court also directed the investigation agency to ensure that the accused is not subjected to any torture during the police custody and granted the accused the right to meet his advocates and wife for half an hour daily during the custody period.
The court acknowledged that the case is at a nascent stage and that the allegations made in the complaint/FIR are corroborated by the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) report. The court also took into account the accused’s criminal antecedents, which were not disputed by the defense counsels, and the fact that his services have been terminated.
During the hearing, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Kumar Srivastava argued that the case is of a serious nature, involving the brutal assault of a public figure and a sitting Member of Parliament. He emphasized that despite the IO’s notice, the Digital Video Recorder (DVR) containing the incident footage has not been provided, and the video footage in the pendrive submitted by the JE was found to be blank for the relevant time. The APP also pointed out that the accused had his mobile phone, an iPhone, formatted in Mumbai just a day before the hearing, raising suspicions of evidence tampering.
The prosecution further argued that the accused needs to be taken to Mumbai to ascertain the facts regarding the formatting of his mobile phone and to collect the deleted data. They also emphasized the need to recover the weapon used in the alleged assault.
On the other hand, defense counsel Rajiv Mohan opposed the custody application, citing the delay in lodging the complaint by the educated complainant and questioning the severity of the alleged assault. He argued that the accused has a fundamental right not to disclose his mobile phone password to the investigating agency and cannot be remanded to police custody for this purpose. Mohan also contended that the accused has no access to the CCTV footage or the DVR, as they are under the control of the PWD Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
The defense counsel further argued that the complainant had ample opportunity to lodge the complaint immediately after the alleged incident but chose not to do so, even when visiting the police station in the area. He suggested that the FIR was lodged belatedly after deliberation and concoctions.
In response, the APP countered that the investigation is at an early stage and that the FIR is not an encyclopedia of the case. He stressed the importance of police custody remand in reaching a logical conclusion, given the grave nature of the case involving the brutal assault of a female Member of Parliament, which has been corroborated by the contents of the FIR, the victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the MLC report from AIIMS Hospital.
The APP also highlighted the high chances of evidence tampering, pointing out that the accused had returned to the same spot where he had been working since 2015, despite his services being terminated by the competent authority. The prosecution further noted that the accused had given evasive answers and had not cooperated with the investigation.
The court, after considering the arguments from both sides, found merit in the prosecution’s submissions and granted police custody remand for five days. The court also noted that this is not the first criminal case against the accused, as he was previously involved in a case registered by Noida Police in 2007 under Section 353 IPC for assaulting a public servant.