The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the conduct of Bibhav Kumar, Arvind Kejriwal’s aide, in the case of the alleged assault of Rajya Sabha member Swati Maliwal, saying it was shocked by how the incident took place at the Delhi chief minister’s residence. The observation came even as the court issued a notice on Kumar’s bail plea and listed it for hearing on August 7.

A bench of justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan said the question is not whether the injuries Maliwal sustained are major or minor. “We are shocked at the manner in which it is done to somebody visiting the CM [chief minister] residence,” it said while agreeing to consider the bail plea. Kumar moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi high court denied him bail on July 12.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Kumar, said Maliwal came to the chief minister’s residence and nobody had gone to her house, prompting the bench to ask if the CM’s office was a private residence. “Does it need these kinds of rules? We have released on bail people who are charged with heinous offences. But see the way and manner the offence is done. What kind of power has gone into his head that she tells him to stop as she is having a particular physical condition, but he continues…It is inhuman. What kind of moral policing does he do.”

The court will hear the matter on August 7 and consider the charge sheet filed in this case. It sought a response from the Delhi Police on Kumar’s bail plea while permitting the petitioner’s lawyers to place the charge sheet on record.

Singhvi said the allegation against Kumar at the highest is that of causing injury and grounds for granting bail are made out as there is no way he can tamper with evidence with the chargesheet already filed.

The bench replied if this kind of person cannot influence, who else can? “If he can mislead people by calling the staff from outside, can anybody dare to speak against him?” The bench wondered if Kumar was a former aide of the CM or a government servant.

Singhvi said Kumar, a former government servant, was a political assistant who fixes appointments of the CM. “The FIR [first information report] says you [Kumar] are ex-private secretary. What authority did you have at the office of the CM that the victim did not have? You want to put out a case as if some goon has gone into the house. And he is not even ashamed of what he has done.”

Singhvi said Kumar was only seeking bail as he had been incarcerated for 75 days. He said that the incident occurred on May 13 and that Maliwal chose to file her complaint only after three days.

The bench said if Maliwal called the police helpline 112 immediately after the incident, what does that show? “This belies your story that subsequently she concocted allegations.”

Singhvi said the FIR was possible due to “friendly” police under a “friendly” Lieutenant Governor, prompting the bench to say that these were internal political affairs.

Kumar was on May 16 booked under the Indian Penal Code’s sections related to criminal intimidation, assault with intent to disrobe a woman, and attempted culpable homicide. Kumar insisted the allegations were false and that his custody was unnecessary since the investigation was complete. He argued that his arrest was made in a hurry violating his rights as the police did not issue him a notice before arresting him without a warrant.