The Delhi High Court on Monday adjourned to September 16 the hearing on YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea in a case registered under the SC/ST Act over alleged objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee also directed the State to provide Bharti's counsel with a complete copy of the FIR after noticing that the copy available in the paper book was incomplete.

During the hearing, the Judge noted that the paper book ended abruptly on page 52 and did not contain the complete FIR.

"Complete FIR is not there. You have a complete copy of the paper book? See page 52, it ends abruptly. There is no...FIR is not complete," the Judge said.

The State counsel agreed with the Court's observation and submitted that the State had a complete copy of the FIR.

Bharti's counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, however, submitted that he only had the copy annexed to the petition and was therefore 'handicapped' by the absence of the complete FIR.

The Judge then directed the State to provide the complete document to the applicant. The State counsel assured the Court that the copy would be supplied during the course of the day.

While dictating the order, the Court recorded: "Since learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is not having a complete copy of the FIR, learned APP submits that the same shall be supplied during the course of the day."

Bharti's counsel also sought interim protection from arrest in the meantime, pointing out that the matter concerned anticipatory bail.

The Court, however, deferred consideration of the request. "Day after tomorrow we'll see, day after," the Judge said.

The matter was thereafter fixed for September 16.

Bharti approached the Delhi High Court after Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea on September 7.

While denying pre-arrest bail, the Sessions Court held that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, attracting the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18.

The FIR

The FIR was registered on a written complaint by the Delhi State President of a registered political outfit, who was not personally present at any physical occurrence; the FIR records the place of occurrence "on social media."

It alleges that Bharti, through his verified account on X (@ajeetbharti) and on YouTube, published an episode of his self-titled programme on August 22, 2026 at about 22:11 hrs, which had garnered approximately 23,100 views by the date of the complaint. The episode was alleged to contain statements "casteist, derogatory and humiliating towards persons of the Scheduled Caste community," towards Chandra Shekhar Azad, and towards Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, along with statements "alleged to be sexually degrading and intimidatory."

The FIR invoked Sections 3(2)(va)/3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(v)/3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 196(1)(c)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The order of the Trial Court stated: "The assertion that the said MP should make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl, is a specific reference to cast and humiliating as to why a person fit to be married to anyone in SC / ST community has to be something extra / something more / worthy of marrying a girl in upper cast." (reproduced verbatim from the order, including as-written wording)

Denying him the relief, the trial Court had said: "This Court finds that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie disclosed on the material on record, and that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 accordingly precludes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant." The application was accordingly dismissed.

Case title - AJEET BHARTI v STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR

Tags: