Sharma told the Court that Bhardwaj was arrested in the FIR under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, another FIR under POCSO was registered against him.
"The police issued me a notice on June 27 to appear for questioning, and I appeared for questioning on June 29.
After my arrest, a new FIR [under POCSO] was registered," Sharma said.
On the other hand, advocate Swati Khanna appeared for the complainant and stated that Bhardwaj used casteist slurs against the complainant and even admitted on a video that it was he who attacked the complainant.
Khanna also informed the Court that Bhardwaj had filed a habeas corpus plea in the Delhi High Court and the same has been rejected.
Sharma told the Court that Bhardwaj was arrested in the FIR under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, another FIR under POCSO was registered against him.
"The police issued me a notice on June 27 to appear for questioning, and I appeared for questioning on June 29. After that, I was allowed to go. Then, after some political developments, I was arrested on September 4. After my arrest, a new FIR [under POCSO] was registered," Sharma said.
On the other hand, advocate Swati Khanna appeared for the complainant and stated that Bhardwaj used casteist slurs against the complainant and even admitted on a video that it was he who attacked the complainant.
Khanna also informed the Court that Bhardwaj had filed a habeas corpus plea in the Delhi High Court and the same has been rejected.
Meanwhile, Delhi Police told the Court that when the complaint was first registered, no mention was made of a casteist slur, later when the statement was recorded again, a casteist slur was mentioned, and therefore the SC/ST Act, was invoked.
After hearing the arguments, the Court reserved its verdict.
