New Delhi, September 24, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case involving alleged casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community, holding that offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were prima facie made out.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed Bharti’s plea seeking protection from arrest in FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station under provisions of the SC/ST Act, the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The High Court held that Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie attracted and that the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail applied. The court consequently held the petition to be not maintainable and dismissed it.
According to the prosecution, Bharti allegedly made casteist, derogatory and humiliating remarks concerning Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community during an episode of his programme published on social media.
Bharti had earlier sought anticipatory bail from the Patiala House Courts. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed the plea on September 7, holding that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was attracted.
The trial court had observed that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r), relating to intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate. It also noted that the alleged remarks contained repeated references to caste names and caste hierarchy and marriageability.
The trial court further recorded that the alleged episode was available on a publicly accessible social media platform and had received more than 23,000 views. It observed that the requirement of the remarks being made within public view could not be considered plainly absent at the pre-arrest stage.
During the High Court hearing on September 16, Justice Banerjee remarked that Bharti ought to have been “circumspect” while making the alleged comments and questioned the Delhi Police over why no notice had been issued to him.
The police submitted that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti’s address only two days earlier and was therefore unable to issue a notice before that.
The High Court also objected to the manner in which a transcript containing the alleged remarks was placed on record. Justice Banerjee described the allegedly used words as offensive and warned Bharti’s counsel about possible contempt proceedings over the transcript.
Appearing for Bharti, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai argued that the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not satisfied, contending that the alleged remarks were not made with an intention to insult or humiliate Azad on account of his caste identity.
Dehadrai submitted that the remarks were made in the context of alleged comments concerning Bharti’s sister on social media and that his client had not targeted Azad because of his caste. He also argued that an abusive statement by itself would not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless the statutory requirement of intention to insult or humiliate on caste grounds was established.
The Delhi Police and the complainant opposed the plea, arguing that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste and were made publicly on social media. The complainant’s counsel submitted that around 23,000 people had access to the content and that caste references were repeatedly made, satisfying the requirement of the remarks being made within public view.
The High Court reserved its decision after hearing submissions from Bharti, the Delhi Police and the complainant. The detailed order of the High Court is awaited.
FOLLOW NOW
