# Delhi Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of YouTuber Ajit Bharti in SC/ST Act Case

> A Delhi court has turned down the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajit Bharti in connection with a case registered over a social media video.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Crime · **Published:** 2026-09-07 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/crime/delhi-court-rejects-anticipatory-bail-plea-of-youtuber-ajit-bharti-in-sc-st-act-case-28974 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Ajit Bharti, Patiala House Court, SC ST Act, Delhi Police, YouTuber, legal proceedings

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.

## What this means for you
This judicial decision carries practical implications for digital creators and commentators regarding online commentary and accountability.

- **Across India:** Content creators across platforms face heightened scrutiny and legal exposure regarding the language and commentary used in their digital uploads and broadcasts.

- **In Delhi:** Local political organizations and digital media circles are closely observing police actions and judicial stances surrounding online content disputes.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. Where was the FIR registered against Ajit Bharti?
The FIR against Ajit Bharti was registered at the North Avenue police station in Delhi.

### 2. In which court was the matter heard?
The matter was heard in Delhi's Patiala House Court before an additional sessions judge.

### 3. Who lodged the initial complaint?
The complaint was filed by Balram Bauddh, the Delhi state president of the Azad Samaj Party Kanshi Ram.

### 4. Who represented Ajit Bharti in court?
Senior advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai appeared in court to represent Ajit Bharti.

### 5. What was the court's decision on the bail plea?
The court rejected Ajit Bharti's anticipatory bail application after hearing arguments from both sides.

---
_TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._