CJP Protest assault case: Court grants regular bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj in SC-ST case after interim bail

Special Judge (SC/ST Act) SPS Laler granted regular bail to Bhardwaj after noting that there was no violation of the conditions imposed while granting him interim bail. The court is expected to pass a detailed order later in the day, specifying the bail conditions.

Bhardwaj was earlier granted three weeks' interim bail by the Patiala House Court on September 15, with strict conditions, including restrictions on making social media posts or giving interviews concerning the case. His conduct during the interim bail period was to be observed before his plea for regular bail was considered.

Delhi Police filed a status report before the court, containing footage from CCTV cameras installed by the police.

Bhardwaj was arrested in connection with the alleged assault on Sanjay Azad, who belongs to the SC community, during the CJP protest at Jantar Mantar on June 23.

While granting interim bail earlier, Special Judge SPS Laler had directed Bhardwaj to furnish a bail bond of Rs 50,000 along with a surety bond of the like amount.

The court had also referred to a Supreme Court order concerning the State of Haryana, in which a murder accused who was granted bail later took out a victory march.

The court had observed, "Public displays of that kind, whether on the street or on social media, do not augur well for society or for law and order, and they erode the public's confidence in the administration of justice. Bail is an expression of the Courts trust, and it is not a trophy to be displayed."

In the context of the present case, the court had said that the applicant had been in custody for a little over ten days, which "should have afforded him time for reflection."

The court had noted that custodial interrogation of the accused was complete and that the offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years. It had said that the principal concern was the safety of the complainant and his minor daughter, which could be secured through appropriate conditions.

"In the considered view of this Court, the duty under the Act to protect the victim and the duty under Article 21 to safeguard personal liberty are best reconciled by releasing the applicant on interim bail for three weeks on stringent conditions. His conduct during that period will be observed, and his prayer for regular bail will then be considered in light of it. Whatever is to be decided about the incident of 23.06.2026 must be decided in a court of law, on evidence, and not in public or on social media," Special Judge Laler had ordered on September 15.

As part of the interim bail conditions, the court had restrained Bhardwaj from making, publishing, posting, uploading or sharing any statement, comment, video, podcast, interview, reel or post concerning the facts of the case, his defence, or the complainant and his family on social media, electronic or print media, or any other public platform.

He was also barred from having conversations in this regard with anyone from electronic, print or social media.

The court had further directed that Bhardwaj should not directly or indirectly contact the complainant, his minor daughter, any member of his family or any prosecution witness, including by telephone or electronic means. He was also directed not to threaten, induce or influence any of them.

The court had directed the investigating officer (IO) to file a report on October 6 regarding any violation of the bail conditions. It had also permitted the counsel for the complainant to apprise the court of any alleged violation.

The court had also raised concerns over aspects of the investigation, observing that significant areas remained to be examined.

It had noted that a podcast formed the central basis of the State's opposition to bail and that its authenticity was disputed. The court observed that the police reply did not state whether the person managing the channel had been examined, whether the original footage had been requisitioned or whether the electronic material had been sent for forensic examination.

The court had further pointed to the absence of details regarding CCTV footage of the protest site, recordings made by Delhi Police personnel deployed at the gathering, the applicant's call detail records and location data, information from social media service providers, statements of the complainant's companions and police personnel who apprehended the accused, and the status of co-accused Suraj Kumar.

The court had directed the IO to collect and preserve CCTV footage of the Jantar Mantar protest site, particularly from around the place of the alleged incident on June 23, from all available government and private sources.

The IO was also directed to collect video recordings, photographs and surveillance material, if any, made by Delhi Police personnel deployed to monitor the gathering, including recordings made to identify persons with past antecedents and footage of the incident.

The court had further directed the police to obtain and analyse call detail records and tower location data of the mobile number or numbers used by the applicant from the commencement of the protest until his arrest.

The IO was directed to requisition subscriber and account details, upload logs, IP addresses and original files from social media service providers and seek preservation of the data pending investigation.

The police were also directed to examine the person managing or operating the channel and establish the source, date and circumstances of the recording.

The court had directed CFSL examination of the pen drive, podcast and videos relied upon by both sides to determine whether they were genuine or had been morphed or artificially generated, and to obtain certification as required under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

The police were further directed to obtain subscriber details of the numbers from which threatening messages shown in the complainant's screenshots were sent, identify the persons responsible and ascertain whether any of them was connected with the applicant.

The court had also directed the police to report the present status of co-accused Suraj Kumar, the steps taken to identify the remaining associates and the follow-up on the Medical Board's opinion.

The status report was also to cover Bhardwaj's conduct during the interim bail period, including any social media activity attributable to him, and the action taken on the threats reported by the complainant and his minor daughter.

Advocates Umesh Chandra Sharma, Chhaya Sharma, Neeraj Chauhan, Dinesh Kumar and Naveen Sharma appeared for Bhardwaj, while advocate Swati Khanna appeared for the complainant and opposed the bail application. (ANI)