# Delhi High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea of Ajeet Bharti Over Remarks Against Chandrashekhar Azad

> The Delhi High Court has dismissed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail application in connection with alleged casteist remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, noting that a prima facie case under the SC/ST Act is made out.

**Type:** article · **Category:** Delhi · **Published:** 2026-09-24 · **Source:** TrendKia
**Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/delhi/chandrashekhar-azad-para-tippani-mamale-men-ajeet-bharti-ki-agrima-jamanata-kharija-delhi-high-court-ne-mana-prathama-drishtaya-ba-37768 · **Language:** English
**Tags:** Ajeet Bharti, Chandrashekhar Azad, Delhi High Court, SC ST Act, Patiala House Court, Anticipatory Bail

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.

## What this means for you
This judicial ruling establishes strict legal accountability regarding public discourse and caste-related statements made across digital platforms.

- **For Social Media Users:** Using caste-based or derogatory language on online platforms can trigger immediate criminal proceedings. Claiming that offensive statements were merely a reaction to online provocation offers no shield against statutory liabilities.
- **Regarding Legal Recourse:** Securing anticipatory bail under the strict provisions of the SC/ST Act remains exceptionally difficult. Courts reiterate that once a prima facie violation is evident, petitions seeking pre-arrest protection cannot be entertained.
- **For Public Figures and Representatives:** Targeted derogatory remarks directed at elected officials and marginalized groups face prompt criminal litigation. The affirmation of statutory protections strengthens the legal recourse available to affected parties.
- **Under Judicial Scrutiny:** Courts at both the trial and appellate levels are relying heavily on digital recordings as primary evidence. Investigative authorities treat archived broadcast material as direct proof when evaluating statutory offenses.

## Why this happened
The legal proceedings arose after a broadcast on social media contained alleged derogatory and casteist remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad and the Scheduled Caste community. Following complaints, the police registered a case under relevant statutory provisions.

- **Alleged Offensive Broadcast:** YouTuber Ajeet Bharti allegedly used objectionable language against lawmaker Chandrashekhar Azad during an online program. The video was widely circulated across digital networks, triggering formal complaints.
- **Invocation of Special Statutes:** Law enforcement invoked stringent sections of the SC/ST Act alongside provisions of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Public caste-based humiliation constitutes a serious statutory offense under these frameworks.
- **Statutory Bar on Anticipatory Bail:** The special legislation explicitly restricts courts from granting pre-arrest protection when an offense is prima facie established. The High Court determined that this statutory bar applied directly to Bharti's application.
- **Findings of the Trial Court:** On September 7, the Patiala House Court observed that the footage indicated deliberate insult and repeated use of casteist expressions. This factual foundation was reaffirmed by the prosecution during High Court hearings.

## Questions & Answers

### 1. What order did the Delhi High Court issue regarding Ajeet Bharti?
The Delhi High Court dismissed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in connection with alleged casteist remarks.

### 2. Under which primary laws has the case been registered against Ajeet Bharti?
The case has been filed under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, alongside provisions of the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

### 3. Why was the anticipatory bail application rejected by the court?
The court held that a prima facie offense is established under the SC/ST Act, which carries an explicit statutory bar against granting pre-arrest bail.

### 4. What was the ruling delivered earlier by the trial court?
On September 7, the Patiala House Court dismissed his plea, noting that the video reflected intentional insult and repeated casteist slurs.

### 5. What defense was argued on behalf of Ajeet Bharti?
His counsel argued that the remarks were not meant to demean anyone's caste, but were made in response to derogatory online comments targeting his sister.

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