Delhi HC: Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail Adjourned, No Interim Protection

• The Delhi High Court adjourned Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea to September 16, declining immediate interim protection.
• Justice Saurabh Banerjee directed the State to provide a complete copy of the FIR after noting the version in the paper book was incomplete.
• Bharti's plea follows the Patiala House Court's rejection of his bail on September 7, citing a prima facie offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
• The case involves alleged casteist and derogatory remarks made by Bharti on YouTube against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and the Scheduled Caste community.
• The FIR invokes multiple sections of the SC/ST Act, the IT Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

This case underscores the Delhi High Court's emphasis on procedural fairness, particularly the requirement for complete disclosure of the FIR to the defense in anticipatory bail pleas.

The Delhi High Court has postponed the hearing for YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail plea until September 16, declining to grant any interim protection from arrest at this stage. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, observed during the proceedings that the copy of the First Information Report (FIR) included in the paper book submitted to the court was incomplete, abruptly ending on page 52.

This procedural irregularity prompted the court to direct the State to furnish a complete copy of the FIR to Bharti's legal counsel. Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, representing Bharti, highlighted that the absence of the full document placed him at a disadvantage, stating he was 'handicapped' without it. The State counsel acknowledged the court's observation and assured that a complete copy of the FIR would be provided to the applicant's legal team during the same day. The request for interim protection, a common feature in anticipatory bail applications, was deferred for consideration at the subsequent hearing.

Ajeet Bharti is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, commonly known as the SC/ST Act. The charges stem from alleged objectionable remarks made by Bharti during a YouTube broadcast, which reportedly targeted Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, and members of the Scheduled Caste community. The FIR was lodged based on a written complaint from the Delhi State President of a registered political organization, with the alleged incident occurring on social media.

The complaint details that on August 22, 2026, at approximately 10:11 PM, Bharti published an episode of his self-titled program on YouTube and his verified X (formerly Twitter) account (@ajeetbharti). This episode, which had garnered around 23,100 views by the time the complaint was filed, allegedly contained statements that were "casteist, derogatory and humiliating" towards the aforementioned individuals and the Scheduled Caste community, alongside remarks described as "sexually degrading and intimidatory." The FIR invokes multiple sections of the SC/ST Act, including 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va), as well as Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Bharti's approach to the Delhi High Court followed the rejection of his anticipatory bail plea by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Court on September 7. The Sessions Court, in denying the relief, concluded that the available material prima facie disclosed an offense under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. This finding is critical as it triggers the statutory bar on anticipatory bail as stipulated under Section 18 of the Act. The trial court specifically cited an assertion that the MP should "make himself worthy of marrying an upper caste girl" as a direct and humiliating reference to caste.

This case underscores the Delhi High Court's emphasis on procedural fairness, particularly the requirement for complete disclosure of the FIR to the defense in anticipatory bail pleas. The court's directive for the State to provide a full copy of the FIR highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that an accused's counsel is not 'handicapped' by incomplete documentation, which is crucial for preparing an effective defense against pre-arrest detention.

Furthermore, the proceedings reinforce the stringent statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act. Section 18 of the Act typically prohibits pre-arrest bail when a prima facie case under certain provisions of the Act is established, as was determined by the Patiala House Court regarding Section 3(1)(r). The invocation of the newly introduced Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 alongside the SC/ST Act in the FIR does not circumvent this established legal principle, as the specific provisions of the SC/ST Act take precedence in matters concerning atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The Ajeet Bharti anticipatory bail Delhi HC adjourned hearing thus serves as a reminder of the strict legal framework governing such cases.

This case highlights the Delhi HC's procedural emphasis on complete FIR disclosure for defense in anticipatory bail pleas and reinforces the strict statutory bar on pre-arrest bail under the SC/ST Act, even with new penal code invocations like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

Source: Original reporting via Lawbeat News Desk