New Delhi [India], March 4 (ANI): The Patiala House Court on Wednesday remanded three Indian Youth Congress workers, Divyansh Girdhar, Bhudev Sharma, and Kuber Meena, to judicial custody in connection with the AI Summit protest case.

The court also issued notice on their bail applications and listed the matter for hearing on March 6.

Also Read | Mumbai Police Issues Traffic Advisory Ahead for India vs England ICC T20 World Cup 2026 Semi-Final at Wankhede on March 5: Road Closures, Parking Restrictions and Diversions Announced.

The Duty Magistrate ordered that Sharma, Girdhar, and Meena be sent to judicial custody.

Earlier, the court had extended the police custody of Bhudev Sharma and Divyansh Girdhar by two days.

Also Read | Rajya Sabha Elections 2026: DMK Announces Tiruchi Siva, Prof J Constantine Ravindran as Candidates; Allots One Seat Each to Congress, DMDK.

While granting further police custody, the court stated that the investigation is at a nascent stage and that the recovery of material evidence, along with the apprehension of co-accused persons, assumes significance.

Meanwhile, the Delhi Police has challenged the bail granted to nine accused persons in the case. The court has issued notices to them.

Duty Magistrate Charan Salwan had earlier rejected the bail pleas of Bhudev Sharma and Divyansh Girdhar and remanded them to two days of further police custody. The Delhi Police had sought three additional days of custody for both accused.

On the other hand, the accused had sought bail on the grounds of parity with 10 other accused persons. However, the court dismissed their bail applications.

"In my considered view, the present application for remand and the prayer for bail stand on a distinctly different footing from that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail," the Duty Magistrate said while rejecting the bail pleas.

The court stated that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that while the rule of parity is a relevant consideration in bail matters, it cannot be applied in a mechanical or uniform manner.

The court also addressed submissions based on the right to protest, holding that the right to protest, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) and Article 19(3) of the Constitution, is a cherished constitutional guarantee in a democratic polity.

"However, the exercise of such rights is not absolute and must be balanced against considerations of public order, security of the State, and other legitimate restrictions contemplated under the Constitution," the court said.

The court noted that the record reveals the alleged protest took place during a national event attended by foreign delegates and dignitaries.

"The nature, timing, and location of the protest are relevant factors at this stage of investigation, particularly in assessing issues of security, public order, and the larger ramifications of the alleged acts," Duty Magistrate Salwan said.

Opposing the bail plea of Divyansh Girdhar, the Delhi Police submitted that his earlier bail application had already been dismissed by the Duty Magistrate vide order dated February 27, 2026. However, the counsel for the accused deliberately did not disclose this fact in the bail application, and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

Seeking further police remand, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Shrivastav submitted that the two accused, Manish Sharma and Vishwajeet, are absconding. He argued that the accused currently in custody could help identify and facilitate the arrest of the absconding persons.

It has been alleged that Manish Sharma, the National In-charge of the Indian Youth Congress, played a pivotal role in planning and executing the protest held on February 20, 2026.

The police further alleged that Vishwajeet distributed slogan-bearing T-shirts near Bharat Mandapam.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, along with Roopesh Singh Bhadauria, appeared for the accused persons and submitted that nine other accused had already been granted bail by the Duty Magistrate on March 1.

The defence also argued that further custody of the accused was not required for the purposes of the investigation. (ANI)

(The above story is verified and authored by ANI staff, ANI is South Asia's leading multimedia news agency with over 100 bureaus in India, South Asia and across the globe. ANI brings the latest news on Politics and Current Affairs in India & around the World, Sports, Health, Fitness, Entertainment, & News. The views appearing in the above post do not reflect the opinions of LatestLY)