AI Summit Shirtless Protest: Delhi Court Grants Bail To IYC Chief Udai Bhanu Chib
Patiala House Court remanded IYC President Uday Bhanu Chib to judicial custody pending verification of his surety bond in the AI Summit protest case
A Delhi Duty Magistrate on Saturday granted bail to India Youth Congress (IYC) National President Uday Bhanu Chib in connection with the February 20 protest at Bharat Mandapam during the AI Impact Summit, after finding no sufficient grounds to extend his police custody.
Chib had been arrested by the Delhi Police Crime Branch along with seven others over the “shirtless protest” staged at the high-profile event in the national capital.
Duty Magistrate Vanshika Mehta of Patiala House Court passed the order.
Appearing for Chib, Advocate Sulaiman Mohammad Khan informed the court that the Crime Branch had moved an application seeking a seven-day extension of police custody remand (PC remand) of the IYC leader. The police also filed two separate applications seeking five-day and two-day remand of two other accused persons.
However, the court was not persuaded.
“We moved an application seeking bail for the National President, Uday Bhanu Chib. The Duty Magistrate was pleased to grant bail and has recorded in the order that the Crime Branch was unable to explain the reasons for seeking extension of police custody remand,” Khan stated after the hearing.
According to the defence, Chib had already been in police custody for four days prior to the remand extension plea. Advocate Roopesh Singh Bhadauria highlighted procedural concerns surrounding the timing of the production before the Magistrate.
“This was not a fresh arrest. He had already been in police custody for four days. We received a message at midnight stating he would be produced at 6 am. Then at 12:30 am, we were informed he would be produced at 1 am. The hearing began around 1:30 am,” Bhadauria reportedly said, adding that the defence rushed to court after the last-minute intimation.
The court ultimately declined to extend Chib’s custodial interrogation, noting the absence of compelling justification from the investigating agency. Bail was granted subject to certain conditions. Chib has been directed to surrender his passport and electronic gadgets before the court and furnish a surety bond of ₹50,000.
The case stems from a protest staged by members of the Indian Youth Congress at Bharat Mandapam on February 20, coinciding with the AI Impact Summit. According to the Delhi Police Crime Branch, eight individuals, including Chib, were arrested in connection with the demonstration, which reportedly involved a “shirtless protest” within the event premises.
While the police sought extended custody for further investigation, the defence maintained that no concrete material had been presented to justify continued detention of the IYC leader.
Notably, on February 24, the court had granted four days’ police custody of Chib. During the police remand hearing, the Delhi Police had submitted that Chib, as IYC president, was the “mastermind” behind the demonstration and that there was a common intention among the accused. Police further argued that custodial interrogation was necessary as other accused persons were located in Jammu, Uttar Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, and that funds and logistical arrangements needed to be traced.
The court had questioned the necessity of a full seven-day remand. The prosecution responded that the investigation had been transferred to the Crime Branch, specifically the Inter-State Crime Branch, and that the broader conspiracy angle required custodial interrogation across states.
Senior Advocate Sanjoy Ghosh, appearing for Chib, had strongly opposed the plea for police custody. He argued that the remand should not be granted in a “mechanical manner” and stressed that the accused had already joined the investigation twice. “He is the president of the Indian Youth Congress. He is not absconding; he is in Delhi,” Ghosh submitted. He contended that the protestors were unarmed and that characterising the incident as a riot-like situation was “totally wrong.” Ghosh had said that while serious crimes plague the city, police were focusing on recovering T-shirts in this case. “In a city where people are being murdered, the police are recovering the T-shirts. This is really a downfall,” he had argued.
Rebutting the allegations of conspiracy, the defence questioned what preparation, if any, was made by the accused to create a rioting situation. The counsel maintained that there was no material to suggest violence or armed mobilisation.
After hearing both sides, the court had reserved orders on the custody plea for 12:30 PM. Later in the day, the court had granted four days’ police custody to Delhi Police, partially allowing the remand sought by the prosecution.
Bench: Duty Magistrate Vanshika Mehta
Order Date: February 28, 2026