Delhi Court dismisses YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in caste remarks case

A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case involving alleged caste-related remarks, stating that the elements of an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were clearly presented from the available evidence. The court found that this prima facie case under the SC/ST Act precluded the grant of anticipatory bail to Bharti.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler made the decision on September 7, while dealing with Bharti's application for bail in connection with an FIR registered at North Avenue police station. The case stems from allegations made during a social media event, where Bharti's verified account on X and a YouTube program were reportedly used to disseminate casteist, derogatory, and humiliating statements towards a member of the Scheduled Caste community.

Bharti argued that the alleged statements needed to be viewed in their full context and that no offense under the SC/ST Act could be established. He also contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary, as the relevant material was already publicly available and no further discovery was required. However, the State and counsel representing the complainant disagreed with Bharti's position.

The court reviewed the FIR, transcripts, and other materials presented before it, as well as the legal requirements for triggering Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. After evaluating the opposing arguments and evidence, the court concluded that the elements of the alleged offense were prima facie present and that the Section 18 bar under the SC/ST Act applied, leading to the dismissal of Bharti's anticipatory bail application.

The court emphasized that its observations were limited to the bail application and should not be interpreted as an opinion on the case's merits. It also noted that the decision would not influence the trial court and that Bharti could still seek further relief or other legal remedies if circumstances changed.