YouTuber Ajeet Bharti has faced a significant legal setback as the Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed his anticipatory bail application. The proceedings stem from allegations that he made caste-based, derogatory remarks against Chandrashekhar Azad, the Member of Parliament from Nagina in Uttar Pradesh, as well as the wider Scheduled Caste community during a social media broadcast. The court held that preliminary evidence establishes a prima facie offense under the special legislation safeguarding marginalized communities, disentitling the applicant from pre-arrest relief.
Statutory Provisions and Legal Bar on Bail
The matter was taken up by a single-judge bench presided over by Justice Saurabh Banerjee. During the hearing, the bench scrutinized the allegations and observed that a prima facie case is clearly made out against Ajeet Bharti under Section 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bench also took note of the invocation of relevant sections of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Banerjee underscored the statutory bar governing pre-arrest bail in matters governed by the SC/ST Act. The bench clarified that because legislation expressly restricts the grant of anticipatory bail where a prima facie offense is apparent, the plea could not be entertained on its merits. Finding the application not maintainable under the operative statutory scheme, the High Court directed that the petition be dismissed outright.
Progression from the Trial Court to the High Court
The underlying controversy emerged following an online broadcast that circulated widely across social media networks. During the program, objectionable remarks were allegedly directed at Nagina lawmaker Chandrashekhar Azad. As video clips from the broadcast spread across internet platforms, criminal complaints were lodged over the offensive assertions made during the transmission.
Prior to approaching the High Court, Bharti had sought anticipatory bail before the trial court. On September 7, the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Court rejected his plea for pre-arrest relief. The sessions judge had observed that the video footage prima facie suggested intentional insult and reflected the repeated deployment of caste-related slurs. Bharti subsequently appealed to the High Court challenging the sessions court's dismissal.
Arguments Advanced During Courtroom Proceedings
Submissions before the High Court witnessed spirited contestation from both sides. Counsel representing Ajeet Bharti submitted that the remarks were never driven by an intention to insult any individual on the basis of their caste identity. The defense maintained that the statements were merely a reaction voiced in the specific context of derogatory comments that had been directed against Bharti's sister across social media channels.
Countering this position, legal representatives for the Delhi Police alongside counsel for the complainant forcefully opposed the plea. The prosecution argued that casteist epithets were uttered publicly on a digital platform, thereby satisfying every essential element of the special statute. Following the conclusion of comprehensive arguments from all sides, the court had reserved its ruling before ultimately pronouncing the dismissal, with the comprehensive written order awaited.
