The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed the anticipatory bail application of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, ruling that the petition was not maintainable due to legal restrictions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that a prima facie case under the anti-atrocity law had been established against Bharti. The court pointed to the explicit statutory prohibition against granting pre-arrest protection under the legislation as the basis for turning down the plea. A comprehensive written order is yet to be released.
Statutory Bar and Case Background
Bharti had approached the High Court after a trial court rejected his pre-arrest bail petition on September 7 on similar grounds, observing that the available material disclosed the essential elements of an offense under the SC/ST Act. Following hearings involving Bharti’s counsel, the prosecution, and the complainant, the High Court reserved its verdict on September 16.
The legal action originated from a complaint lodged by Chandrashekhar Azad, the Bhim Army chief and Lok Sabha member representing the Nagina constituency.
Allegations and Registered Charges
In his complaint to the Delhi Police, Azad accused Bharti of posting derogatory, abusive, and caste-based statements on social media platforms. The lawmaker alleged that the remarks targeted him, the wider Scheduled Caste community, and B.R. Ambedkar.
Consequently, police registered a First Information Report against Bharti under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Rival Arguments Before the Court
Both the Delhi Police and Azad’s legal representative strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. The prosecution argued that Bharti’s statements were disseminated across a public social media platform rather than within a private setting, satisfying the criteria necessary to invoke the SC/ST Act and nullify pre-arrest relief. Azad’s counsel further submitted that the words were deliberate and derogatory, with police stating that the language directly disparaged a specific caste.
In defense, Bharti’s counsel argued that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were inapplicable, asserting that the content lacked deliberate intent to humiliate or insult. The counsel stated that the YouTuber had not uttered any casteist slurs or targeted the parliamentarian over his caste background, describing the remarks as a reaction to severe provocation against a family member during an online exchange.
