The Patiala House Courts granted three weeks' interim bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj while highlighting significant gaps in the investigation conducted by the Delhi Police in an alleged assault case linked to a protest at Jantar Mantar in July. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler, while passing the order, observed that the investigating officer had failed to adequately address certain aspects of the case and directed the officer to file a status report addressing the deficiencies flagged by the court. The judge emphasized that in the digital age, intimidation of a victim does not require physical proximity and can be effectuated through public statements made on social media platforms.
The court noted that while granting interim relief, it considered the accused's conduct after the incident to be a significant factor. It observed that social media has emerged as a new medium of intimidation, capable of reaching victims and witnesses with greater permanence and reach. However, the court clarified that, based on the material before it, abusive and sexually explicit messages allegedly sent to the complainant and his minor daughter could not be traced to Bhardwaj. Nevertheless, the judge stated that such messages demonstrated how public discourse surrounding a pending case could foster hostility against the victim and their family.
The court further held that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions. It clarified that this freedom does not extend to using public platforms to overawe a victim or to try a pending case before the public. The judge stated that a condition restraining the applicant from commenting publicly on the subject matter of the case bears a direct connection to the protection of the victim and the integrity of the proceedings, is proportionate to that object, and does not constitute a general restraint on lawful expression.
Accordingly, the court directed that Bhardwaj shall not make, publish, upload, or share any statement, video, podcast, interview, reel, or post concerning the case, his defence, or the complainant and his family on any public platform during the period of interim bail. The court listed his regular bail plea for October 6 for consideration of grant or dismissal of regular bail or extension of interim bail.
The FIR was initially registered at Parliament Street Police Station under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), read with Section 3(5) of the BNS. It was later amended to include Section 351(3) of the BNS and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, after the complainant, on September 4, gave a supplementary statement claiming he belonged to a Scheduled Caste and alleging that caste-based derogatory remarks had been made against him and his minor daughter. The court noted that the original FIR did not contain allegations of caste-based abuse, and such allegations surfaced approximately ten weeks after the incident. While cautioning that a belated allegation is not necessarily false, the court observed that it could not determine the truth of the allegation at the threshold. However, it stated that this circumstance bears on the weight to be given to the accusation for the limited purpose of bail.
The prosecution alleged that on June 23, the complainant had gone to Jantar Mantar with his daughter and a friend to participate in a protest when an altercation occurred after a person objected to the complainant recording a video. It claimed that Bhardwaj and his associates surrounded and assaulted the complainant with fists and a hard object resembling a kada, resulting in two lacerated wounds on his head. The FIR was initially registered for bailable offences under Sections 115(2) and 126(2) BNS. Bhardwaj was not arrested at that stage and joined the investigation pursuant to a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). He was arrested on September 4 following the supplementary statement and was remanded to judicial custody.
The Delhi Police had relied on social media material and a podcast in which Bhardwaj allegedly spoke about the incident. The court, while granting interim bail, reiterated that the alleged post-incident conduct weighed significantly in its consideration. The judge emphasized that the conditions imposed were necessary to prevent any attempt to influence the proceedings or intimidate the victim through public commentary.