SHIMLA: A crackdown linked to the February 20 protest during the India AI Summit at Bharat Mandapam in Delhi spiralled into an extraordinary inter-state standoff on Thrusday, after the pre-dawn arrest of three Youth Congress activists in Himachal Pradesh triggered counter-allegations of abduction, a police-versus-police confrontation on highways, a late-night courtroom battle and even the seizure of a Delhi Police vehicle.
What followed was nearly 24 hours of escalating drama between the police forces of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh — stretching from a quiet resort in Rohru to courtrooms and checkpoints around Shimla. Here is how the events unfolded:
5.30 am: The resort knock
Before sunrise on Wednesday, a Delhi Police Special Cell team reached a resort in Rohru, around 110 km from Shimla. Acting on an FIR linked to the February 20 “shirtless protest” at Bharat Mandapam, officers detained three Youth Congress activists — Saurav, Arbaaz and Siddharth.
Read more:
AI protest fallout: 20 Delhi cops detained, freed, halted again in Himachal Pradesh after arrests of Youth Congress membersAccording to Delhi Police, the operation was backed by technical surveillance and prior inputs. The trio was escorted out and placed in vehicles headed towards Shimla — the first part of their journey to Delhi.
At this point, it appeared to be a routine interstate arrest.
The complaint that changed everything
Hours after the Delhi team left Rohru, Himachal Pradesh Police received a complaint at Chirgaon police station.
15–20 unidentified men in plain clothes had forcibly taken away three guests from the resort. The complainant further claimed the CCTV DVR had been removed without a seizure memo or receipt and that a vehicle linked to the detainees had also been taken.
An FIR was promptly registered. What began as an arrest now had the makings of an abduction case — at least on paper.
Early afternoon: The highway interception
By afternoon, Himachal Police tracked down the Delhi Police convoy near Dharampur in Solan district.
The convoy was intercepted.
State police officials questioned the legality of the operation, claiming they had not been informed in advance. The Delhi team maintained the arrests were lawful and properly documented.
Instead of continuing to Delhi, the convoy was escorted back towards Shimla.
The power dynamic had shifted — from arresting team to questioned officers.
Evening: The DVR dispute escalates
As the teams reached Shimla, tensions rose over the alleged seizure of the resort’s CCTV DVR.
Himachal Police pressed for answers, citing procedural violations. Delhi Police denied wrongdoing, insisting all actions were lawful and necessary for the investigation.
Both sides accused the other of obstructing official duty.
The situation was no longer just about three detainees — it had become a jurisdictional flashpoint between two police forces.
Late night: Courtroom showdown
Close to midnight, the three activists were produced before the ACJM-II court in Shimla.
Delhi Police sought transit remand to take them to Delhi. Defence lawyers opposed the plea, arguing illegal detention, lack of local intimation, and alleged procedural lapses — including claims regarding medical examination at the time of arrest.
After hearing both sides, ACJM-II Ekansh Kapil granted transit remand.
Legally, Delhi Police had clearance to move.
But the night wasn’t over.
Early hours, Thursday: Second halt on NH-5
In the early hours of Thursday, as the Delhi Police convoy moved out of Shimla with the accused, it was stopped again — this time near Shoghi on National Highway-5.
Shimla Police directed some members of the Delhi team to join the investigation in the FIR registered over the Rohru complaint.
In a purported video that appeared from the Shogi border in the suburbs of Shimla city, the Delhi Police officers were heard saying that they had arrested three people in the morning in connection with an FIR registered on February 20.
"We have to produce the accused arrested at 5 am today in the court in 24 hours, and you have stopped us after registering an FIR at 8 pm," a Delhi Police officer could be heard saying.
However, Shimla Police maintained that a case of abduction had been filed, alleging that the Delhi Police was hampering their investigation. "I asked you for legal documentation in the morning, but you neither showed any document nor provided the FIR number," a Shimla Police officer could be heard replying.
In a statement issued in Shimla, leader of opposition in the Himachal Pradesh Assembly Jai Ram Thakur said, "It is shameful to provide protection in Himachal Pradesh to individuals from outside Himachal Pradesh who have attempted to tarnish the country's image internationally."
Thakur accused chief minister Sukhwinder Singh Sukhu of engaging in 'politics of anarchy' to win favour with Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, claiming the Himachal Pradesh Police should have cooperated with the Delhi Police in this interstate operation, but instead attempted to detain them.
One Delhi Police vehicle was seized, with Himachal Police alleging it contained the resort’s DVR.
Delhi Police officers on the ground maintained their immediate priority was complying with the court’s remand order and ensuring the safe transfer of the accused.
The standoff had now stretched well past midnight into a second day.
The larger backdrop
The arrests are linked to the February 20 protest at Bharat Mandapam in Delhi, which had triggered heightened security and multiple arrests. Eleven individuals have already been taken into custody in that case, including senior Youth Congress functionaries.
But the Rohru episode has added a new layer — one that moves beyond the protest itself to questions of inter-state procedure, police coordination, and allegations of forcible detention.
What happens next?
Delhi Police has begun the process of shifting the accused to the national capital under transit remand. Meanwhile, Himachal Pradesh Police has made it clear that its FIR — including allegations of abduction and improper seizure — will be investigated independently.
Senior officers from both sides have largely avoided detailed public statements, but the unfolding legal process is expected to determine whether this was a case of procedural miscommunication — or something more contentious.