New Delhi, September 14, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court on Monday deferred the hearing on YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case concerning his alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee listed the matter for September 16 after Bharti’s counsel informed the court that he had not received a complete copy of the FIR. The court was told that the full FIR would be provided to the applicant’s counsel during the day.
Bharti’s counsel also sought interim protection from arrest until the next hearing. The High Court, however, did not grant immediate interim relief and adjourned the matter.
The plea relates to FIR No. 30/2026, registered on August 23 at North Avenue Police Station under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
According to the FIR and material placed before the trial court, Bharti allegedly made casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks about Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community during an episode of his social media programme.
The allegations stemmed from Bharti’s alleged response to a comment suggesting that he arrange his sister’s marriage with Azad. The trial court order said his response referred to the “Dom” and “Chamar” castes and questioned Azad’s suitability to marry a woman from a “Savarna” family.
Bharti had earlier approached the Patiala House Courts for anticipatory bail. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed the plea on September 7, holding that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act applied.
The trial court found that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, concerning intentional insult or intimidation of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe member with intent to humiliate.
The court observed that the alleged remarks contained repeated references to caste and directly invoked caste hierarchy and marriageability. It also noted that the episode had been published on a publicly accessible social media platform and had received more than 23,000 views.
The trial court clarified that its observations were limited to determining the applicability of the statutory bar at the pre-arrest stage and did not constitute a finding on Bharti’s guilt or innocence.
FOLLOW NOW
