The Delhi High Court observed Kumar had not only challenged the "non-compliance" of CrPC Section 41A but also the "manner in which he was arrested” in the case of alleged assault on Swali Maliwal. The Delhi High Court on Monday sought the police’s stand in a plea filed by Bibhav Kumar, the aide of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, challenging his arrest in connection with the alleged assault of AAP Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal. Issuing notice to the Delhi Police, a single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, “…One of the exceptions to the general rule that a writ petition would not be maintainable when an alternative remedy is available, is when a writ petition has been filed for enforcement of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India. As noted above, the petitioner herein has specifically alleged a breach of his fundamental rights by the State/police, while challenging his arrest on grounds of non-compliance of Section 41A of CrPC and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. “This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that at this stage, the petition before this Court is maintainable to the extent of issuance of notice to the respondent. The merit of the case will, however, be decided only after a reply is filed in this case by the State. In view thereof, it is ordered that notice be issued to the State who will file an appropriate reply to the present petition within one week, and advance copy of the same will be provided to the other side,” the HC said while listing the matter on July 8. On May 31, the Delhi High Court reserved its verdict on Kumar’s plea after hearing arguments by both parties on the “maintainability” of the plea. In Monday’s order, the high court observed Kumar had not only challenged the “non-compliance” of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) alone but also the “manner in which he was arrested, the malafide of arrest and breach of his fundamental rights”. Kumar, in his plea, has sought that his arrest be declared illegal, in gross violation of the provisions of CrPC Section 41A, and against the mandate of law. He also sought appropriate compensation for his “illegal” arrest and initiation of departmental action against the “erring” officials who were behind the decision to arrest him. Kumar has been booked under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including sections 354B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 308( attempt to commit culpable homicide) among others. Kumar has claimed in his plea he was arrested with an “oblique motive” while his anticipatory bail plea was pending in the trial court, in violation of his fundamental rights as well as the law. Before the high court, the Delhi Police opposed the maintainability of Kumar’s plea arguing that he had not annexed the order passed by a magisterial court on May 20 before whom Kumar had moved a “separate application” specifically raising the issue of non-compliance of Section 41A of CrPC. The police said this application was disposed of by the magisterial court with the observations that the issue of non-compliance of Section 41A of CrPC had already been dealt with “at the time of grant of police custody remand of the accused/petitioner on May 19”. The police said Kumar had not challenged the May 20 order before the sessions court and, since an alternative remedy is available to Kumar, his writ petition before the Delhi High Court is not maintainable.