The court said it was concerned that if "a person" can be assaulted in the presence of the Delhi chief minister and the deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places.
"At a place where the chief minister is sitting, a person is assaulted. What is the law and order situation. This is happening in front of the chief minister. I am not going on the personality of the person who was assaulted. You need to answer this," Justice Mukta Gupta said.
The judge said, "I am concerned that if a person is assaulted in the presence of the chief minister and deputy chief minister, what will happen at other places? How should I be satisfied that no such incident would take place in future?"
The court, which has called for a file relating to Jarwal's previous criminal case, would resume the hearing on his bail plea after some time.
The court is also scheduled to hear the bail application of another AAP's Okhla MLA Amanatullah Khan, who was also arrested in the case on February 21.
The counsel further claimed that only heated arguments took place between the MLAs and the chief secretary (CS) and no assault took place.
The police, in its status report filed through advocate Sanjay Lau, said that as per the medical report of the senior bureaucrat, his injuries were of simple nature but two of the provisions invoked on Jarwal were non-bailable.
He told the court that Jarwal's name was not mentioned in the FIR because the CS was initially not aware of the name of those who assaulted him.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the CS, filed an intervention application and opposed Jarwal's bail plea saying the bureaucrat was called in the room consciously because no camera were there and he was made to sit between two persons.
Amanatullah Khan had yesterday moved his bail plea before the high court.
Jarwal and Khan are undergoing 14-day judicial custody, which expires tomorrow, in connection with the alleged assault on the bureaucrat during a meeting at Arvind Kejriwal's residence on the night of February 19.
A magisterial court had earlier denied bail to both of them, saying the matter cannot be treated in "a casual and routine manner" while dubbing them as "history-sheeters".
Jarwal had then moved a sessions court and was again denied the relief with the court saying the situation could not be more alarming when lawmakers do not respect the rule of law.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
