A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court found, at the preliminary stage, that remarks allegedly made by Bharti concerning Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad contained a caste-related reference capable of attracting Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. Because a prima facie offence under the special legislation was made out, the court held that Section 18 of the Act prevented it from granting pre-arrest bail.
Delhi Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in SC/ST Act Case
The order was passed on September 7, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler in the case titled State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti.
What Led to the FIR Against Ajeet Bharti?
The criminal case arose from an online video published by Bharti on his YouTube channel and verified X account.
According to the FIR, the episode was uploaded on August 22, 2026. The complaint alleged that the programme contained derogatory and caste-based statements concerning Chandra Shekhar Azad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, besides other remarks described as sexually degrading and intimidating.
The FIR was registered at North Avenue Police Station in Delhi.
The allegations were made under several provisions of the SC/ST Act, along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The complaint also recorded social media as the place where the alleged offence occurred.
Also Read: Pre-Regularisation Ad-hoc Service Must Count for Pension Benefits, Supreme Court Rules
What Did Bharti Say in the Video?
The court examined the portion of the programme that became the basis of the allegations.
The discussion apparently began after a social-media user suggested that Bharti should arrange his sister’s marriage with Chandra Shekhar Azad and linked the proposed marriage to the issue of reservation.
Bharti responded by referring to caste and marriage. During the exchange, he allegedly stated that Azad would need to make himself worthy of marrying a woman belonging to an upper-caste family.
The court also noted that the discussion subsequently included other remarks of an explicitly sexual nature. The judge chose not to reproduce those portions in the order.
Also Read: Supreme Court Directs 7 States to Raise District Judges’ Retirement Age to 62
What Was Bharti’s Argument Before the Court?
Bharti’s counsel argued that the essential requirements of the SC/ST Act had not been established even on a preliminary basis.
The defence submitted that the complainant had not personally witnessed the alleged incident and had not himself been subjected to caste-based insult or intimidation.
The defence further relied upon the requirement that an offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) must occur within public view. According to the applicant, this requirement was not satisfied merely because a video was available online.
Counsel also argued that the statements were part of a hypothetical response to another social-media user rather than an attack directed at a specific woman or individual.
The defence relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions, including Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, to contend that the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail should apply only where a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act is actually established.
It was also argued that the offences under the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could not automatically become subject to the SC/ST Act’s bail restrictions merely because they appeared in the same FIR.
Delhi Court Examines Whether Section 3(1)(r) Was Prima Facie Attracted
The court clarified that it was not deciding Bharti’s guilt or assessing the evidence as would happen during trial.
At the anticipatory-bail stage, the limited question was whether the allegations disclosed a prima facie offence under the SC/ST Act. If such an offence was made out, the court then had to consider the statutory restriction contained in Sections 18 and 18A.
The judge emphasized that every offensive statement concerning a member of a Scheduled Caste does not automatically become an offence under Section 3(1)(r).
There must be a connection between the alleged insult and the person’s caste.
In the court’s assessment, however, the present allegations went beyond ordinary abuse because caste references were repeatedly used in the discussion.
Court Finds Caste Reference Was Central to the Remarks
The court distinguished the case relied upon by the defence in Shajan Skaria.
According to the order, the video considered in that earlier case did not contain a caste reference of the kind necessary to establish a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r).
The Delhi court found the circumstances here different.
It observed that caste was not merely mentioned incidentally. Rather, the court considered the caste references and the discussion about marriage and suitability to be central to the statements under examination.
The judge considered the alleged suggestion that a person from a Scheduled Caste would have to become “worthy” of marrying into an upper-caste family particularly relevant.
According to the court, the remarks could prima facie be understood as invoking caste hierarchy and notions of superiority between communities.
Can an Online Video Satisfy the ‘Public View’ Requirement?
Another important issue was whether the alleged insult could be regarded as having taken place within public view when it was made through an online programme.
The court did not finally decide this question.
However, it noted that the video had reportedly been made publicly available and had received more than 23,000 views by the time of the complaint.
At the anticipatory-bail stage, the judge was therefore not prepared to conclude that the public-view requirement was clearly absent.
The court left the broader legal question open for consideration during the later stages of the proceedings.
Section 18 Prevented Grant of Anticipatory Bail
After examining the allegations, the court concluded that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie present.
This finding became crucial because Section 18 of the Act places a statutory restriction on granting anticipatory bail where the allegations disclose an offence under the legislation.
The court therefore held that Bharti could not obtain pre-arrest bail at this stage.
Since the application failed on this preliminary statutory issue, the judge said there was no need to undertake the usual bail assessment concerning factors such as the possibility of fleeing from justice, influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Court Declines to Separate the Other Alleged Offences
The defence had also argued that the allegations under the IT Act and BNS were separate from the alleged offence under the SC/ST Act.
The court did not accept the argument at this stage.
It observed that the different allegations arose from the same video and the same course of conduct. Therefore, the court found no sufficiently separate transaction that could be carved out for the purpose of granting anticipatory bail.
As a result, the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act remained applicable to the application.
Anticipatory Bail Application Dismissed
On the basis of its preliminary assessment, the Delhi court dismissed Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail application.
The court made it clear that its findings were limited to deciding whether the statutory bar on anticipatory bail was attracted.
It did not decide whether Bharti was ultimately guilty of the offences alleged against him.
The judge also clarified that the trial court should decide the case independently and should not be influenced by the observations contained in the anticipatory-bail order.
The order further leaves Bharti free to pursue any other legal remedy available to him or seek appropriate relief if circumstances change.
Key Takeaway
The important point emerging from the order is that the Delhi court did not hold Bharti guilty. Instead, it found that the allegations and material before it were sufficient, at the preliminary stage, to disclose a prima facie offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
Once that threshold was crossed, Section 18 operated as a bar against granting anticipatory bail.
The case also highlights an important legal question concerning caste-based remarks made through publicly accessible social-media platforms. The court did not finally settle whether an online broadcast always satisfies the “public view” requirement, leaving that issue open for a fuller examination during the proceedings.