CJP Protests Delhi Police Over Handling of Assault Case Against Influencer

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) has launched a fresh round of protests in New Delhi, marching to the Parliament Street Police Station to demand more stringent action against self-styled Hindutva influencer Swatantra Bhardwaj. The demonstration, led by CJP spokesperson Saurav Das and co-convener Ashutosh Ranka, centers on an alleged assault involving Sanjay Kumar, the father of activist Nishu Azad, during a protest at Jantar Mantar in June. The party has accused the police of failing to register appropriate charges, specifically alleging that officials refused to invoke Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder despite the severity of the injuries sustained by Kumar.

This latest confrontation highlights growing tensions between the CJP and law enforcement regarding the handling of high-profile political incidents. While the CJP maintains that the assault was a targeted, politically motivated attack, the Delhi Police has consistently disputed the severity of the injuries and the narrative surrounding the incident. As the CJP continues to press for accountability, the case has drawn broader scrutiny from opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, who have questioned whether political influence is shielding the accused from the full weight of the law.

The core of the CJP’s grievance stems from a viral podcast appearance by Swatantra Bhardwaj, in which he boasted about his role in the Jantar Mantar incident. Bhardwaj claimed to have “broken the skull” of Sanjay Kumar, asserting that the victim required 60 stitches and was transported to the hospital in critical condition. Furthermore, Bhardwaj alleged that he avoided arrest due to his political connections, explicitly naming Delhi BJP minister Kapil Mishra and Union minister Chirag Paswan as figures who provided him with support and protection.

Saurav Das, speaking on behalf of the CJP, has characterized these claims as evidence of a systemic failure to protect citizens from politically aligned individuals. Das alleged that when CJP members approached the police to demand the inclusion of attempt-to-murder charges, they were told by senior officials, including DCP Sachin Sharma and ACP Ajay Sharma, to seek a court order instead. The party has also raised questions about the potential role of Kapil Mishra in pressuring the police, demanding that he be investigated as an accomplice if the allegations of interference are proven true.

In response to the mounting pressure, the Delhi Police has issued a formal rebuttal, characterizing the claims of a fractured skull as “misinformation” and “completely baseless.” According to the DCP of New Delhi, the incident occurred on June 23, and the victim, 38-year-old Sanjay Kumar, was medically examined at RML Hospital. The police report states that Kumar’s injuries were classified as “simple in nature” and were caused by a *kada* (metal bangle) worn by one of the participants during the scuffle, rather than a weapon.

The police have confirmed that a case was registered at the Parliament Street Police Station following the complaint. Two individuals, 24-year-old Suraj Kumar and 21-year-old Swatantra Bhardwaj, were detained at the scene, served with legal notices, and subsequently interrogated. The department has denied all allegations of political interference, asserting that the investigation is proceeding according to standard legal procedures and that a chargesheet will be filed before the competent court in the near future.

The case has transcended local protest dynamics, drawing national attention from opposition figures. Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has publicly questioned the integrity of the investigation, asking why a self-proclaimed criminal appears to enjoy protection from the ruling party. Gandhi’s intervention has placed additional pressure on the Union Home Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office to clarify the extent of political oversight in the case.

the discourse surrounding the incident has been further complicated by shifting narratives from the accused. Following the initial viral claims of “cracking a skull,” Bhardwaj has reportedly backtracked, now framing his actions as self-defense. This shift has only served to deepen the resolve of the CJP, which continues to organize sit-ins and marches, framing the struggle as a fight against communal hate-mongers and the perceived impunity of those with political backing.

The immediate future of the case rests on the filing of the police chargesheet and the subsequent judicial review. The CJP’s insistence on a court-monitored investigation suggests that the legal battle is far from over, regardless of the police’s current stance. Observers are now waiting to see if the courts will intervene to re-examine the medical evidence or the classification of the charges, which remains the primary point of contention between the protesters and the authorities.

As the CJP continues its mobilization, the incident serves as a flashpoint for broader debates regarding the use of facial recognition technology in monitoring protests and the transparency of police investigations into politically sensitive cases. With the CJP vowing to maintain its pressure until more stringent action is taken, the Parliament Street Police Station remains a focal point for ongoing civil unrest in the capital.