The Delhi Police on Monday (October 5, 2026) registered an FIR against a woman journalist who has accused Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Vivek Bhagat of sexual harassment and manhandling, along with 16 other protesters, shortly after they were detained for staging a protest Parliament Street police station demanding registration of a case against the officer.
The Delhi government, meanwhile, clarified that the October 5 order assigning current duty charge of Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police to 12 DANIPS officers was based on a proposal initiated on August 25, well before the present allegations. Earlier in the day, the accused official, an Assistant Commissioner of police rank officer, was promoted to the rank of Additional Deputy Commissioner of police on Monday in an order signed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) Ramesh Kumar.
Later, a Government order stated that the assignment was a temporary arrangement carrying no financial benefit and did not confer the statutory powers of a regular incumbent. ACP Vivek Bhagat subsequently requested that he not be given the current duty charge until a full enquiry into the allegations of harassment of women journalists was completed. The order has been modified accordingly, with the charge to be assigned to the remaining 11 officers.
The FIR was registered by the Parliament Street police station after the protesters had spent a second consecutive night outside the station demanding registration of a case against ACP Bhagat. The 17 protesters were detained on Monday (October 5, 2026) morning and initially taken to the Delhi Cantonment police station before being taken to different police stations in the New Delhi district.
Later in the night, following a brief period of arrest, all 17 protesters were granted conditional bail.
Court directs report on custodial torture allegations
A Patiala House court granted bail to all 17 accused in the case, observing that although the allegations against them were “serious in nature”, all the offences invoked against them, except Sections 132 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, were bailable. The court noted that Section 132, which relates to assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of duty, carries a maximum punishment of two years, as per the bail order seen by The Hindu. It also noted that the accused were young and did not appear to be habitual offenders.
The court, however, also took note of allegations of custodial assault made by two of the accused. According to the order, accused Dharmender and Samarth alleged that they had been beaten inside Parliament Street police station after being detained, while Sheikh Yunus alleged that he was injured after being pushed during the protest. The court noted that medical reports recorded abrasions, tenderness, contusions and swelling in some of the accused. It directed that a report be called from the DCP, New Delhi, regarding the allegations of custodial torture and ordered that relevant CCTV footage from Parliament Street police station be preserved.
The police, in opposing bail, alleged that the protesters had formed an unlawful assembly despite prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, obstructed public space, manhandled police personnel, including a woman officer, and assaulted them, resulting in injuries to one officer. The police also alleged that the protesters broke the window and rear-side glass of the bus in which they were being taken, causing damage to public property. These allegations were recorded by the court as the investigating officer’s submissions and were not findings of guilt.
While granting bail, the court said that a person has a right to protest peacefully, but assaulting police officials on duty cannot be permitted under the garb of a peaceful protest. At the same time, it held that, considering the nature of the offences, the young age of the accused and the fact that they did not appear to be habitual offenders, there was no justification for keeping them in judicial custody. The accused were granted bail on a bond of ₹15,000 each with one surety of a like amount, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and appearing before the court on each date of hearing.
The two women journalists were released from Mandir Marg police station on Monday evening, while the remaining 15 protesters were released later.
This comes at a time when the woman journalist had been seeking an FIR against ACP Vivek Bhagat after alleging that he sexually harassed and shoved her while she was covering a protest demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on October 3. She has said the alleged incident occurred while she was recording the detention of All India Students’ Association president Neha Bora.
She had also been detained during the October 4 protest and was detained again on Monday (October 5, 2026) morning.
The Crime Branch, to which three complaints alleging sexual harassment and manhandling by police personnel were transferred on Sunday (October 4, 2026), had not registered an FIR in any of the cases by Monday (October 5, 2026) evening, nearly 48 hours after the alleged incidents.
On Sunday (October 4, 2026), the Delhi Police said three women journalists had submitted complaints alleging sexual harassment and manhandling by police officers during the October 3 protest. The complaints were transferred to the Crime Branch for a “fair and impartial enquiry”.
The complainant had spent several hours at the Parliament Street police station on Sunday (October 4, 2026) seeking registration of an FIR.
The police have maintained that the concerned personnel were performing law and order duties during the protest. An official told The Hindu that registering cases against police personnel for actions taken in the course of such duties could “deter them from working”.
A New Delhi police official had also told The Hindu on Sunday (October 4, 2026) that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegation and that footage from the many cameras present at the protest should establish whether the incident had occurred.
The developments have drawn political and civil society reactions. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, in a post on X, alleged that women protesters and journalists had been subjected to mistreatment by the Delhi Police during the recent protests and questioned the absence of an FIR on the journalist’s complaint.
“What’s happening in Delhi right now follows a single pattern: silence any woman who dares to ask questions,” Mr. Gandhi said, alleging that female protesters had complained of misbehaviour by male police officers and that cameras had been snatched from women journalists.
He also referred to recent accounts by journalists Shaheen and Nafisa of alleged violence and mistreatment inside the Saket police station and demanded that CCTV footage from the station be made public and action be taken against police personnel found guilty.
Legal affairs head of the Cockroach Janta Party Ratna Singh alleged that the detainees were assaulted and “brutally beaten” by the police.
Advocate Supantha Sinha of the Association for Indian Labour and Administrative Justice (AILAJ), who was on the ground to coordinate the legal response, alleged that the detainees were assaulted during their detention and subsequently taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for medical examination and medico-legal certificates.
The continuing protests have also brought wider complaints from women protesters about their treatment during the demonstrations from October 2. Several women, including students, have alleged sexual harassment and manhandling by police personnel during their detention.
Published – October 05, 2026 10:43 am IST
