Swati Maliwal case: Bhibhav moves court against chargesheet cognisance

Q: How long will it take to read this news story?

The story "Swati Maliwal case: Bhibhav moves court against chargesheet cognisance" has 458 words across 12 sentences, which will take approximately 2 - 4 minutes for the average person to read.

Q: Which news outlet covered this story?

The story "Swati Maliwal case: Bhibhav moves court against chargesheet cognisance" was covered 1 weeks ago by Business Standard, a news publisher based in India.

Q: How trustworthy is 'Business Standard' news outlet?

Business Standard is a fully independent (privately-owned) news outlet established in 1975 that covers mostly business and finance news. The outlet is headquartered in India and publishes an average of 346 news stories per day. It's most recent story was published 5 hours ago.

Q: What do people currently think of this news story?

The sentiment for this story is currently Negative, indicating that people regard this as "bad news".

Q: How do I report this news for inaccuracy?

You can report an inaccurate news publication to us via our contact page. Please also include the news #ID number and the URL to this story.<ul><li>News ID: #23512137</li><li>URL: https://beamstart.com/news/swati-maliwal-case-bhibhav-moves-17313175541003</li></ul>

Business Standard Logo Business Standard 1w ago

Swati Maliwal case: Bhibhav moves court against chargesheet cognisance - Business Standard

Quick Summary:

Former chief minister Arvind Kejriwal's aide Bibhav Kumar has challenged before a Delhi court an order that took cognisance of the police's charge sheet against him for allegedly assaulting AAP MP Swati Maliwal.

October 29, Kumar's counsel Manish Baidwan filed the revision plea in a Tis Hazari sessions court arguing cognisance was taken in a "mechanical manner" under the repealed criminal procedure code instead of the new Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

It said, "Cognisance requires consideration whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further for taking action under subsequent provisions of the new BNSS, which is missing in the present case".