Delhi HC allows urgent hearing on plea challenging Swatantra Bhardwaj’s arrest

New Delhi, Sep 7 (IANS) The Delhi High Court will hear on Monday a habeas corpus petition filed by self-styled ‘influencer’ Swatantra Bhardwaj, who is currently in custody in connection with the alleged assault of the father of a minor activist during a protest at Jantar Mantar.

The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya by Bhardwaj’s counsel, advocate Umesh Sharma, who submitted that the accused has been in custody for the past three days and contended that his arrest was illegal.

The High Court allowed the request for urgent listing of the habeas corpus plea for Monday.

According to the petition, Bhardwaj’s arrest and subsequent custody are unlawful and he should be released forthwith.

The plea comes a day after a Delhi court remanded Bhardwaj to one day of judicial custody following the completion of his one-day police custody in connection with the alleged assault.

Duty Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Anjali Singh passed the order after Bhardwaj was produced before the court through video conferencing.

The Delhi Police had sought 14 days of judicial custody. However, the court remanded him to judicial custody for one day.

Bhardwaj was earlier sent to one day of police custody after being produced before the judge concerned at the Karkardooma Court complex on Saturday.

He was detained in Uttar Pradesh’s Bulandshahr district on Friday, hours after representatives of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) met senior Delhi Police officials and demanded his immediate arrest.

According to the police, Bhardwaj is accused of assaulting Sanjay Kumar, father of a minor protester, during a CJP-led demonstration at Jantar Mantar in July.

Delhi Police had earlier said the injuries suffered by Kumar were “simple” in nature and were caused by a steel bracelet.

However, the police later added provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and criminal intimidation to the FIR registered in connection with the alleged assault.

The demand for invoking an attempt-to-murder charge was also raised by the CJP, with police stating that the provision would be considered after obtaining an expert medical opinion.

A fresh FIR was also registered against Bhardwaj under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on the complaint of the minor activist, who alleged online rape threats and harassment.

The case also invokes relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act.

Earlier, Bhardwaj’s counsel Umesh Sharma had accused the Delhi Police of “acting completely outside standard legal procedures” in securing his police remand.

“The established law requires that whenever someone is arrested, they must be produced before the jurisdictional area magistrate within 24 hours. Yesterday, we waited outside the courtroom of the jurisdictional magistrate. Upon discovering that the presiding judge was on leave, we approached the designated link magistrate.

“However, the police circumvented this by producing him via video conferencing before an entirely different designated SC/ST court and secured a one-day police remand,” Sharma had told reporters.

The controversy had erupted after a purported viral video in which Bhardwaj allegedly claimed that he had physically assaulted the father of a minor activist during the Jantar Mantar demonstration and allegedly boasted that he was let off because of his “political connections”.

Amid the outrage, Bhardwaj later told the media that he had allegedly acted in self-defence.

Union Minister and Lok Janshakti Party-Ram Vilas (LJP-RV) chief, Chirag Paswan, had also said that his name was “misused” by Bhardwaj in the purported video.

Paswan said he had filed an official complaint against Bhardwaj and would ensure justice for the minor victim and her family.

The CJP had staged a protest outside the Parliament Street Police Station demanding action against Bhardwaj and seeking the addition of attempt-to-murder, criminal intimidation and SC/ST Act provisions to the case.

–IANS

pds/rad