A Delhi court on Tuesday, September 15, granted social-media influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj three weeks of interim bail in connection with the alleged assault on Sanjay Azad, father of student activist Nishu Azad, during a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest at Jantar Mantar on June 23.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts granted the relief on a ₹50,000 personal bond with a surety of the same amount, noting that Bhardwaj had spent over 10 days in custody and that his custodial interrogation was complete.
His regular bail plea will be considered on October 6, after the court reviews his conduct during the interim period. Bhardwaj has been barred from discussing the case publicly or on social media, contacting the complainant, his minor daughter or witnesses, tampering with evidence, or leaving India without permission.
The court stressed that “bail is an expression of the court’s trust” and “not a trophy to be displayed”, adding that the June 23 incident must ultimately be decided in court on evidence rather than through social-media narratives.
Court Flags Investigation Gaps
While granting temporary relief, the court balanced Bhardwaj’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution with concerns over the safety of Sanjay Azad and his minor daughter. The judge also flagged gaps in the Delhi Police investigation, particularly regarding digital evidence.
According to the order, police relied on a podcast/video as an important part of their case but had not adequately explained whether the person managing the channel had been examined, whether the original footage had been obtained or whether the electronic material had undergone forensic examination.
The court also noted unanswered questions concerning CCTV footage from Jantar Mantar, recordings made by police personnel at the protest, and Bhardwaj’s call-detail and location records. It directed the investigating officer to address the shortcomings in a status report.
The court observed that intimidation in the digital age need not involve physical proximity because online statements concerning an alleged assault can reach victims and witnesses widely and remain accessible. Bhardwaj’s counsel, meanwhile, argued that his arrest was politically motivated and claimed that video footage showed Sanjay attacking Bhardwaj first.
The complainant’s side opposed bail, alleging that Bhardwaj assaulted Sanjay and used casteist slurs. Delhi Police told the court that the original complaint did not mention a casteist slur and that the allegation appeared in a subsequent statement, after which provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were added. These competing claims remain allegations and have not been finally determined by the court.
Viral Video, Arrest and Charges
The case stems from a confrontation during the June 23 Jantar Mantar protest, where Sanjay Azad was allegedly assaulted while attending the demonstration with his daughter.
Bhardwaj was initially booked for offences including causing hurt and wrongful restraint, while the case was subsequently expanded to include provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and criminal intimidation; a separate case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was also registered against him.
The controversy intensified after an interview clip circulated online in which Bhardwaj appeared to claim that he had “cracked the skull” of the activist’s father and suggested that his political connections had helped him avoid arrest.
Bhardwaj later said he had acted in self-defence, while Delhi Police said Sanjay’s injuries were medically classified as “simple in nature”. Bhardwaj was eventually detained in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, in early September, hours after CJP supporters protested outside Parliament Street police station demanding his arrest, and he was later remanded to judicial custody.
The case has consequently developed beyond the original physical confrontation, raising questions about digital evidence, alleged caste-based abuse, public statements by an accused person and the safety of the complainant’s family. The Supreme Court had also recently expressed concern over reported threats and intimidation involving the minor activist and stressed the need for adequate protection for her and her family.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The case highlights why due process, victim protection and responsible public communication must operate together, particularly when allegations involving violence, caste discrimination and a minor enter the highly polarised space of social media. Interim bail is neither an acquittal nor a determination of guilt, and allegations against an accused must be established through evidence and a fair judicial process.
At the same time, complainants and witnesses deserve protection from intimidation, harassment and online targeting while investigations continue. The court’s insistence that the June 23 incident be determined “in a court of law, on evidence, and not in public or on social media” is especially relevant at a time when viral clips can shape public opinion long before evidence is tested judicially.
Also read: Water Cannons Used As Congress Protests Gulzar Singh’s Death In Chandigarh
