BREAKING| Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail: Delhi Court Dismisses YouTuber’s Plea In SC/ST Act Case
Delhi Court dismisses Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in SC/ST Act case
Delhi’s Patiala House Court has dismissed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case concerning allegedly objectionable remarks made during a YouTube broadcast.
Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler pronounced its decision on Monday (September 7) after hearing detailed arguments on Bharti’s plea seeking protection from arrest in the case registered under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A detailed order explaining the reasons for dismissal is expected to be pronounced at 6 PM today.
Bharti’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, had earlier argued that the bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act could apply only where the allegations in the FIR or complaint disclose a prima facie offence under the Act.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, Dehadrai had submitted that the Court must examine whether the basic ingredients of the alleged offence were made out before applying the statutory bar.
He had argued that every offensive or objectionable statement concerning a person belonging to an SC/ST community would not automatically constitute an offence under the Act.
Dehadrai had particularly addressed the ingredients of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, stressing the requirements of intentional insult or intimidation, the intention to humiliate and the connection between the alleged conduct and the victim’s caste.
Counsel had also sought to explain the context of Bharti’s alleged remarks, submitting that they followed a social-media exchange involving a comment concerning Bharti’s sister and Chandrashekhar Azad.
He had argued that Bharti’s remarks were directed at a particular individual and were not intended to humiliate or target an entire caste or community.
Dehadrai had further submitted that Bharti’s statements, when read in their entirety, showed that he was opposed to caste discrimination and had advocated a scientific caste census and quota-within-quota to ensure reservation benefits reached under-represented communities.
The defence had also relied on the doctrine of grave and sudden provocation, arguing that the alleged remarks could not be considered in isolation from the circumstances in which they were made.
After hearing the arguments at length, the Patiala House Court dismissed Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea.
Background
After brief hearing in the case, the Court had directed that, if the Investigating Officer issues such a notice, a copy must also be placed before it. The Court said this would enable the Court to examine the date of issuance of the notice and the prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of an offence under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Investigating Officer has been summoned and notice has been issued to the police on the anticipatory bail plea.
FIR over YouTube broadcast
The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station, Delhi, following a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), the party headed by Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
The complaint relates to remarks allegedly made by Bharti during an August 22 YouTube programme titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.”
The complainant has alleged that Bharti made caste-based and abusive remarks concerning Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr BR Ambedkar, besides making sexually objectionable comments concerning women and issuing threats.
According to the complaint, the videos contain a continuous sequence of statements concerning caste, reservation, marriage, and members of Scheduled Caste communities. It alleges that the accused repeatedly invoked caste identity in a derogatory and humiliating context. Apart from the provisions of the SC/ST Act, the FIR invokes Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (Section 153-A and 506 of IPC).
Case Title: State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti
Bench: ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler
Order Pronounced: September 7, 2026