New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in connection with an FIR over his alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community, holding that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was prima facie made out against him.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed Bharti’s plea seeking protection from arrest in the case registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The High Court held that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was prima facie made out against Bharti and that the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail was attracted. The petition was therefore held not maintainable and was dismissed.
Bharti had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by the Patiala House Courts in connection with FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station.
According to the prosecution’s case, Bharti allegedly made casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning Azad and persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste community during an episode of his programme published on social media.
Bharti had earlier approached the Patiala House Courts seeking anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed his plea on September 7, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted.
The trial court had observed that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, which concerns intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate.
It had further observed that the alleged remarks contained an express and repeated invocation of caste names and involved references to caste hierarchy and marriageability.
The trial court had also recorded that the alleged episode was published on a publicly accessible social media platform and had garnered more than 23,000 views, observing that the requirement of the remarks being made within public view could not be treated as plainly absent at the pre-arrest stage.
Bharti thereafter approached the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s order. During the hearing on September 16, Justice Banerjee had remarked that Bharti ought to have been “circumspect” while making the alleged comments and questioned the Delhi Police on why no notice had been issued to him.
“You don’t require custodial interrogation?” the High Court had asked.
The Delhi Police had submitted that the investigating officer obtained Bharti’s address only two days earlier and was therefore unable to issue him a notice before that.
The High Court had also objected to the manner in which a transcript containing the alleged remarks was placed on record. Justice Banerjee had remarked that the words allegedly used by Bharti were offensive and warned his counsel of possible contempt proceedings over the transcript.
Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had argued that the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not attracted as the alleged remarks were not made with the intention to insult or humiliate Azad on account of his caste identity.
Dehadrai had contended that the remarks were made in the context of alleged comments concerning Bharti’s sister on social media and that his client had not targeted Azad because of his caste.
The counsel had further submitted that an abusive statement by itself would not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless the statutory requirement of intention to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste was satisfied.
On the other hand, Delhi Police and the complainant had opposed the plea, submitting that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste and were made publicly on social media.
The complainant’s counsel had also argued that around 23,000 people had access to the social media content and that caste references were repeatedly made, thereby satisfying the requirement of the remarks being made in a place within public view.
The Delhi High Court had reserved its decision after hearing the submissions of Bharti, the Delhi Police and the complainant. The detailed order of the High Court is awaited.
(IANS)
