1 hr ago
Delhi High Court Denies YouTuber Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail
A court in Delhi refused to protect YouTuber Ajeet Bharti from possible arrest.
The case involves comments he allegedly made about politician Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of a Scheduled Caste community.
Police and the complainant say the comments were insulting, caste-based and made publicly online.
The law used in the case can restrict courts from granting advance protection from arrest.
The judge said the available material showed a possible offence under that law.
Bharti’s lawyer said the comments were a response to remarks about Bharti’s sister.
His lawyer also argued that Bharti did not target Azad because of his caste.
A lower court had rejected Bharti’s request earlier, and the High Court has now rejected his appeal.
The Delhi High Court denied YouTuber Ajeet Bharti protection from arrest.
The case concerns allegedly casteist and derogatory remarks about MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and Scheduled Caste communities.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out.
The court found the statutory bar on anticipatory bail applied and dismissed Bharti’s petition as not maintainable.
Bharti argued his comments responded to social-media remarks about his sister, while police and the complainant said the remarks were public and caste-based.
- Who
- YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, MP Chandra Shekhar Azad, the Delhi Police and the complainant Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).
- What
- The Delhi High Court denied Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case involving alleged casteist and derogatory remarks.
- Where
- The case is before the Delhi High Court and concerns an FIR registered at North Avenue Police Station in New Delhi.
- When
- The High Court decision was delivered on Thursday; the lower court had rejected bail on September 7, and an earlier High Court hearing took place on September 16.
- Why
- The court found that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out, triggering the statutory bar on anticipatory bail.
Bharti’s Position
Police and Complainant’s Position
Intent behind the remarks
Bharti’s Position
Bharti’s lawyer argued that the comments were made in response to abusive social-media remarks about Bharti’s sister and were not intended to humiliate Azad because of his caste.
Police and Complainant’s Position
The Delhi Police and complainant argued that the remarks targeted a particular caste and amounted to intentional public humiliation.
Applicability of the SC/ST Act
Bharti’s Position
Bharti’s counsel said an abusive statement alone does not establish an offence unless the required caste-based intention to insult or humiliate is shown.
Police and Complainant’s Position
The prosecution and complainant said repeated caste references and alleged insults satisfied the elements of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s).
Public view requirement
Bharti’s Position
Bharti disputed that the SC/ST Act’s requirements were met.
Police and Complainant’s Position
The prosecution and complainant said the remarks were published on a publicly accessible social-media platform viewed by more than 23,000 people, meeting the public-view requirement at this stage.
Key facts
- Accused
- YouTuber Ajeet Bharti
- Complainant
- Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), according to one report
- FIR
- FIR No. 30/2026 at North Avenue Police Station; one report said the complaint was filed on August 23
- Legal provisions
- Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, along with provisions of the Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- High Court judge
- Justice Saurabh Banerjee
- Earlier ruling
- The Patiala House Courts rejected Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea on September 7
- Online reach
- The trial court recorded that the allegedly offending episode had received more than 23,000 views
Quotes
Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Delhi High Court judge hearing Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea
“My remarks were made as a reaction because somebody said my married sister should marry someone. This was a grave provocation.”
scroll.in
“You don't require custodial interrogation?”
thehansindia.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi Court Denies Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Case
Delhi High Court to Hear YouTuber’s Anticipatory Bail Plea
Delhi Police, Azad Oppose YouTuber’s Anticipatory Bail Plea
Delhi High Court Reserves Order on YouTuber Bharti’s Bail Plea
Delhi Court Grants Interim Bail to Swatantra Bhardwaj
Hindutva Influencer Granted Interim Bail After Alleged Protest Assault
