Delhi Court Awards Interim Bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj
In a significant legal development, a Delhi court has granted Swatantra Bhardwaj, a prominent right-wing influencer, a three-week interim bail. This decision comes amidst allegations of assault during protests orchestrated by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at the iconic Jantar Mantar.
On Tuesday, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court rendered the interim bail decision. Bhardwaj, who had initially petitioned for regular bail, was apprehended on September 5 in Uttar Pradesh. The arrest followed accusations of assaulting the father of a Dalit student-activist during the July protests. The charges against him include assault and violations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [SC/ST Act]. Additionally, an independent FIR involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) has been filed against him.
Details of the Allegations and Legal Proceedings
Initially, Bhardwaj faced charges under Sections 115(2) (causing simple hurt) and 126(2) (wrongful restraint) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). However, following his social media admission about harming the complainant, the charges were escalated. Bhardwaj’s post boasted about cracking the skull of the student-activist’s father, leading to his brief detention.
The situation intensified as leaders of the CJP, along with the victim and his daughter, protested at the Parliament Street police station, prompting the police to file more serious charges.
In a prior legal move, Bhardwaj sought habeas corpus relief from the Delhi High Court to contest the legality of his arrest, but this plea was ultimately dismissed. Currently, Bhardwaj remains in judicial custody.
More Read
Courtroom Arguments and Counterarguments
During the bail hearings, Advocate Umesh Chandra Sharma defended Bhardwaj, arguing that his arrest was politically motivated. Sharma asserted that the complainant was the actual aggressor and claimed to possess video evidence of the complainant’s attack. However, he criticized the Delhi Police for their inaction against the complainant.
Opposing Bhardwaj’s defense, Advocate Swati Khanna, representing the complainant, accused Bhardwaj of using casteist slurs and confessed to the assault on video. She reminded the court of the habeas corpus plea’s rejection by the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi Police further clarified that the initial complaint lacked any reference to casteist remarks. However, a subsequent statement from the complainant prompted the invocation of the SC/ST Act.
