Back
rejects plea of Swatantra Bhardwaj, custody under judicial orders
The on Monday dismissed a petition filed by self-styled influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj, who had challenged the legality of his arrest and continued detention in connection with an alleged assault during a protest at Jantar Mantar. A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja held that since Bhardwaj was in custody pursuant to valid judicial orders, a was not maintainable. The court advised the petitioner to challenge the before the appropriate trial court instead.
Background: The Jantar Mantar Incident and Escalating Charges
The case originates from a protest organized by the at Jantar Mantar in . Bhardwaj was initially booked under Sections 115(2) (causing simple hurt) and 126(2) (wrongful restraint) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for allegedly assaulting Sanjay Azad, the father of a minor Dalit student-activist who was participating in the protest. The controversy escalated after Bhardwaj posted a video on social media in which he claimed to have "cracked the skull" of Azad and boasted about his proximity to leaders Kapil Mishra and Chirag Paswan. Both leaders denied any association, and Paswan filed a separate complaint against Bhardwaj for misusing his name.
Following protests by CJP leaders and the victim's family at the , the added more serious charges, including provisions of the and criminal intimidation. Subsequently, a separate FIR under the was also registered based on a complaint by the minor activist alleging online rape threats and harassment.
Arrest and Custody Timeline
Bhardwaj was detained by the Crime Branch in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh, on , and brought to Delhi. He was produced before the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) at on , who granted one day of . On , he was remanded to one day of by the Duty Magistrate. On , Special Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler extended his by 14 days, until . It was during this period that Bhardwaj's counsel filed a petition before the , arguing that the arrest was illegal because the FIR against him had been quashed by the .
High Court's Reasoning: The of
During the hearing, Bhardwaj's counsel submitted that the
, in an order dated
, had quashed all FIRs related to the NEET paper leak protests, and that the present FIR was among those quashed. Therefore, the counsel argued,
"the police has the audacity of arresting me in an FIR which is supposed to be quashed, which does not exist in the eyes of law."
The counsel further contended that even a single day's custody after such
was illegal.
However, the
, represented by Counsel
, disputed this claim. The police stated that Bhardwaj had been produced before competent courts on multiple occasions and that he was in custody pursuant to judicial orders.
"Once there is a legal order which has been passed, they can challenge it there. So where is the question of
?"
the bench observed. The court also noted that the ground regarding the FIR being quashed had not been raised in the petition itself.
The bench then sought a clear response from the police. The Station House Officer (SHO) of gave instructions to the court that the specific FIR under which Bhardwaj was arrested (FIR No. 0062/2026) had not been quashed by the . On that basis, the court dismissed the petition.
The court further clarified:
"If that objection has been considered and wrongly considered, please challenge it. If that objection has not been raised and therefore not considered, we can't interfere. Either way, it is either a challenge to the order or nothing. How is a
maintainable?"
Legal Analysis: Limits of When Orders Exist
The judgment reinforces a well-established principle in criminal jurisprudence: is a remedy for , but it cannot be used as a substitute for challenging specific judicial orders. Once a magistrate or sessions judge has passed a after applying , the remedy lies in appealing or revising that order, not in invoking the High Court's .
In this case, Bhardwaj had been remanded to and then by two different courts. The High Court observed that even if the FIR had been quashed, that issue should have been raised before the remand court. Since it was not, or if it was raised and rejected, the proper course was to challenge the remand order itself. The could not lie when the detention was authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction.
The court also noted the procedural irregularity of the petitioner raising a new ground ( of FIR) for the first time in the petition without having pleaded it. This further weakened the of the petition.
Impact on Legal Practice and Future Cases
This decision serves as a practical reminder for criminal lawyers: the availability of is severely limited once a judicial order of custody is in place. Legal professionals must carefully consider the sequence of events—if a remand order has been passed, the proper challenge is to that order under (or analogous provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or through a revision petition, not through .
Additionally, the case highlights the importance of verifying the status of a FIR before claiming it has been quashed. The police's categorical denial, backed by instructions from the SHO, was sufficient for the court to reject the petitioner's contention. This case also underscores the judiciary's reluctance to entertain writ petitions when exist and have not been exhausted.
Conclusion
The 's dismissal of Swatantra Bhardwaj's plea reaffirms the settled principle that a person in cannot challenge the legality of their detention through unless the itself is demonstrably non-existent or without jurisdiction. Bhardwaj remains in until , 2026, and may now pursue remedies against the before the appropriate trial court. The underlying criminal case—involving allegations of assault, casteist slurs, and child sexual abuse—will proceed in accordance with law. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for litigants and counsel alike about the proper use of in the face of judicial .
