Youuber Ajit Bharti has faced a major legal setback from the Patiala House Court in Delhi. The court rejected his anticipatory bail application in a case linked to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler pronounced the order on Monday, turning down the relief sought by the applicant.
Details of the FIR Filed in Delhi
The FIR against Ajit Bharti was registered at the North Avenue police station in Delhi on 23 August. Police booked him under provisions of the SC/ST Act, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint was lodged by Balram Bauddh, who serves as the Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party Kanshi Ram.
Content of the Social Media Video
The dispute arose from a video published on Ajit Bharti's social media handle, which was titled 'SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti'. The complaint alleged that the video featured derogatory and offensive language concerning caste. Additional allegations included making objectionable remarks about Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr B R Ambedkar, using inappropriate language against women, and issuing threats.
Arguments Presented by the Defense Counsel
Senior advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared in court to represent Ajit Bharti. The defense argued that based on the facts of the matter, no offense under the SC/ST Act is made out. Bharti's legal team also pointed out that police had not yet issued any notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Reference to Sister and Provocation Arguments
The defense contended that Bharti's remarks were not directed against any caste or community. Instead, they argued that his response came after a specific individual allegedly made an offensive comment regarding his married sister. The legal team submitted that this constituted grave provocation for Bharti, limiting his remarks to the individual concerned rather than targeting any social group.
Clarification Regarding Dr B R Ambedkar
The defense lawyers also refuted allegations regarding remarks made against Dr B R Ambedkar. According to the defense, Bharti expressed respect for Baba Saheb, and his comments were intended to question alleged offensive remarks made by certain followers rather than disparage the figure himself.
Police Stance and Court Order
During the proceedings, Delhi police informed the court that the mere registration of an FIR does not automatically mean an arrest is certain, suggesting that apprehension of arrest should not be presumed solely on that basis. However, after listening to arguments from both sides, the Patiala House Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea. The specific legal grounds for denying the relief will become clearer once the detailed court order is made available.
