Court issues notice to Olympian DSP over hospital assault complaint: A practical reader guide

Court issues notice to Olympian DSP over hospital assault complaint: A practical reader guide

The legal trouble for Olympian boxer and deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Jai Bhagwan has increased after a court in Siwani in Bhiwani district issued him notice in connection with an alleged assault on a hospital security guard during a dispute over parking a vehicle in May 2025.

It has also sought a report from Bhiwani superintendent of police (SP) Mayank Mishra on the circumstances surrounding the incident. An FIR was registered at the Siwani police station the following day on the complaint of Navratan, a security guard from Rupana village. “A report containing facts and circumstances of the incident alleged in the complaint be sought from the SP, Bhiwani, being the officer superior to public servant (police official) for the date fixed. The notice to the proposed accused and the Bhiwani SP be accompanied with a copy of complaint with its documents,” reads the order.

The matter will come up for hearing on October 14. The incident took place on May 6, 2025, at Shri Krishna Pranami Hospital in Siwani.

The court of the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM), Siwani Dharampal, has sought Jai Bhagwan’s response to the complaint challenging the police closure report in the case, according to information.

An FIR was registered on May 7, 2025, under Section 115 (2) and 126 (2) of the BNS. However, police later filed a closure report in the case, giving relief to the accused. Because the accused himself was a police officer, the complainant alleged that records relating to his treatment at the hospital were not properly maintained and that the investigation was influenced.

Navratan’s counsel, advocate Zile Singh Kantiwal, said that the preliminary evidence of the complainant and a witness, Sanjay, had been recorded before the court. He said the court had issued notice to the proposed accused, being a public servant, under the relevant legal provisions and sought his response.

Navratan subsequently challenged the closure report before the court, alleging that the investigation had not been conducted properly.