Archive · 16 Sep 2026
Delhi Police, Azad Oppose YouTuber’s Anticipatory Bail Plea
YouTuber Ajeet Bharti is asking a high court to protect him from being arrested while a case is investigated.
The case concerns comments he allegedly made about MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
Azad says the comments were caste-based, abusive and humiliating.
Delhi Police also says the remarks may be covered by a law protecting Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Bharti’s lawyer says he did not mean to insult anyone because of caste.
The lawyer also says the comments were made during an argument on social media.
A prosecutor says the comments were public and could qualify as an offence under the law.
The judge asked why police had not sent Bharti any notices to join the investigation.
The judge said an order would be issued after hearing everyone.
Delhi Police opposed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case involving alleged casteist remarks against MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
Azad’s lawyer said the remarks were derogatory and intentional, while Bharti’s counsel denied any caste-based intent.
Bharti’s lawyer argued that the SC/ST Act was not applicable because there was no intentional insult or humiliation based on caste.
The prosecution said the alleged remarks were made publicly on social media and met the requirements for applying the SC/ST Act.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard the arguments and said he would pass an order; the case was filed under the SC/ST Act, Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Who
- YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Delhi Police and the Delhi high court.
- What
- The court heard Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in a case over alleged casteist remarks against Azad.
- When
- The hearing was reported on September 16; a trial court had rejected Bharti’s pre-arrest bail plea on September 7.
- Where
- The proceedings took place before a high court in Delhi, and the complaint was filed with Delhi Police.
- Why
- Bharti sought protection from arrest, while police and Azad opposed bail over alleged caste-based, abusive and humiliating remarks.
Bharti’s Defense
Police and Azad
Whether the SC/ST Act applies
Bharti’s Defense
Bharti’s counsel argued that a caste reference alone is not an offence without an intention to insult or humiliate the person because of caste.
Police and Azad
The prosecution said the alleged words directly insulted a particular caste and that the required elements of the SC/ST Act were present.
Meaning and intent of the remarks
Bharti’s Defense
Bharti’s lawyer said the comments were made during a social-media exchange, did not target Azad because of his caste, contained no casteist slur and followed grave provocation involving a family member.
Police and Azad
Azad’s lawyer described the purported remarks as derogatory and intentional; Azad’s complaint alleged caste-based, abusive and humiliating statements against him, the SC community and B R Ambedkar.
Need for police action
Bharti’s Defense
Bharti sought anticipatory bail after the trial court refused pre-arrest protection.
Police and Azad
Police opposed the plea, while the judge questioned why no notices had been sent to Bharti to join the investigation. The prosecutor said police had obtained his address only two days earlier.
- Accused
- YouTuber Ajeet Bharti
- Complainant
- Chandrashekhar Azad, Nagina MP and Bhim Army chief
- Judge
- Justice Saurabh Banerjee
- Charges cited
- Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; Information Technology Act; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Police position
- The alleged public social-media remarks directly insulted a particular caste and attracted the SC/ST Act.
- Defense position
- The remarks lacked an intention to insult or humiliate on the ground of caste and were made in the context of a social-media exchange.
- Earlier decision
- A trial court refused anticipatory bail on September 7, finding that the SC/ST Act offence was prima facie disclosed.