In the Jantar Mantar attack case, a Delhi court allows Swatantra Bhardwaj three weeks of interim bail.

In a case involving the alleged assault of a student activist’s father at a rally at Jantar Mantar, a Delhi court on Tuesday awarded Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj three weeks’ interim bail, according to court sources.

The order was issued during in-camera hearings by Patiala House Court Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler. Bhardwaj had applied for standard bail. A comprehensive order is awaited. Since his arrest earlier this month, Bhardwaj has been under judicial custody. He was placed into judicial custody for 14 days on September 7 by the court, and his detention was later extended until September 21.

After that, he was taken into custody and charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for assault-related charges. He is also the subject of a different FIR that invokes the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Bhardwaj was first charged with simple injury and illegal restraint under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in the first FIR. After Bhardwaj stated in an interview that he had “cracked the skull” of the student activist’s father at the June 23 rally and managed to avoid arrest due to his political connections, the case attracted attention.

Bhardwaj was arrested after more serious charges were added after the student activist, her father, and CJP leaders demonstrated outside the Parliament Street police station. The next day, Bhardwaj appeared before a judge who permitted the Delhi Police to question him in custody for one day. He was then placed under judicial detention by a magistrate’s court.

Advocate Umesh Chandra Sharma, who represented Bhardwaj during the bail proceedings, contended that the arrest was politically motivated and asserted that the complainant had attacked Bhardwaj. Sharma informed the court that a video showed the complainant assaulting Bhardwaj, but he claimed that the Delhi Police had not taken any action against the complainant.

The complainant’s attorney, Swati Khanna, objected to the bail request and said that Bhardwaj had insulted the complainant with casteist remarks. Additionally, she cited a video in which Bhardwaj purportedly acknowledged attacking the complainant.

Khanna further told the court that Bhardwaj had already filed a habeas corpus petition contesting his arrest with the Delhi High Court, but the motion was denied. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police informed the court that there was no reference of casteism in the initial allegation. The complainant only mentioned the claimed casteist insult in a later statement, according to the police, after which the SC/ST Act‘s provisions were applied.