Row between AAP govt, cops in Bharti's domestic violence case

The AAP Government and city police today again confronted each other in Delhi High Court on the issue of representing the state during the hearing of a plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to AAP MLA Somnath Bharti in a domestic violence case.
When the plea, filed by Bharti's wife Lipika Mitra, came up for hearing before Justice P S Teji, an additional standing counsel of Delhi government, objected to the appearance of police's lawyer Shailendra Babbar, saying a special public prosecutor (SPP) has been appointed by the AAP regime.
Babbar opposed the contention saying he has been appointed as SPP for this case by the Lieutenant Governor.

However, government's counsel referred to a notification, saying advocate Kamna Vohra has been appointed as a SPP in the case.
The court asked the counsel to file an application in this regard and posted the matter for next hearing on May 4.
Delhi government and the police have been at loggerheads on the same issue in other cases too, like the Kanhaiya Kumar sedition case and CNG fitness scam case.

Bharti's wife has sought cancellation of his bail granted on October 7 last year on several grounds, including that the trial court "has not applied its mind" while granting relief to the former Delhi minister.

Lipika has claimed that the bail order was almost like a verdict and the trial court had relied on the case diary which allegedly should not have been done at that stage.
She had lodged a case of domestic violence and attempt to murder against the AAP MLA, who was arrested in the wee hours on September 29 last year after the Supreme Court had ordered him to surrender.
The trial court had granted him the relief, saying he was no longer required for investigation purposes and had observed that since he was a member of Delhi Legislative Assembly, there was no ground to agree with the apprehensions of the police that he may flee abroad.

However, the trial court had imposed several conditions on him, including that he would not leave Delhi without its prior permission, not tamper with evidence and join the probe as and when required.
On September 22 last year, the high court had rejected his anticipatory bail plea, observing that allegations against him were backed by "documentary proof".