Counsel for self-styled right-wing influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj told the Delhi High Court that Delhi Police showed “audacity” by travelling to Bulandshahr in Uttar Pradesh to arrest him in connection with the Jantar Mantar protest case. The counsel claimed the Supreme Court had already quashed all related FIRs. Police contested this, stating that the FIR in the present matter had not been quashed.
The bench directed Delhi Police to clarify whether the FIR remained active, either through an affidavit or an immediate statement. Police counsel informed the court that Bhardwaj had been produced before a magistrate following his arrest and was subsequently remanded first to police custody and then to judicial custody.
The High Court rejected Bhardwaj’s habeas corpus petition challenging the legality of his arrest. Separately, a Delhi court extended his judicial custody by 14 days until September 21 in connection with the alleged assault on Sanjay Azad during a protest on June 23.
Bhardwaj was detained in Bulandshahr on September 4 and brought to Delhi. On September 5, a court granted police one day of custodial interrogation. He was later sent to one-day judicial custody and produced before a special judge via video conferencing from Tihar Jail after the police custody period ended.
The arrest followed public outrage over a video podcast in which Bhardwaj allegedly claimed he had “cracked the skull” of Azad during the Jantar Mantar protest and suggested the act attracted provisions under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. He later stated that he had acted in self-defence. Delhi Police earlier described Azad’s injuries as simple in nature and attributed them to a steel bracelet. Police subsequently added charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and for criminal intimidation. A separate FIR under the POCSO Act was registered after a complaint by a teenage activist who alleged online threats and harassment following her statements about the alleged assault on her father.
The developments continue to unfold as the courts examine the circumstances of the arrest and the related charges.