Delhi Court: Ajeet Bharti Anticipatory Bail Rejected, SC/ST Act

• A Delhi court has denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case involving charges under the SC/ST Act, IT Act, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
• Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler issued the order, with a detailed copy still awaited.
• The FIR, filed on August 23 at North Avenue Police Station, stems from a complaint by Balakram Bauddh of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).
• Allegations against Bharti include using caste-based and abusive language, objectionable remarks about B.R. Ambedkar and Chandrashekhar Azad, sexually degrading language, and threats in a social media video.
• Bharti's defense counsel argued his remarks were a reaction to a 'grave provocation' involving a comment about his married sister.

This case provides a current example of a Delhi court's approach to anticipatory bail applications under the SC/ST Act, especially when combined with charges under the IT Act and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

A Delhi court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti, who faces charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The decision was rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, though a detailed copy of the order is still pending release. This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings against Bharti, particularly concerning the Ajeet Bharti anticipatory bail rejection SC/ST Act Delhi.

The FIR against Bharti was lodged on August 23 at Delhi's North Avenue Police Station. The charges extend beyond the SC/ST Act to include Section 67 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, alongside Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint was initiated by Balakram Bauddh, who serves as the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), highlighting the political and social dimensions of the case.

The complaint against Ajeet Bharti stems from a video titled "SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti," which was published on his social media platform. According to the complainant, Bharti allegedly employed caste-based and abusive language within the video. Furthermore, the complaint asserts that he made objectionable remarks concerning prominent figures such as Chandrashekhar Azad ('Ravan') and B.R. Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language targeting women, and issued threats.

In his defense, Bharti has publicly maintained that his controversial remarks were made under grave provocation. His legal representative, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued before the Delhi court that the comments were a direct reaction to a highly offensive statement posted on Bharti's video. Specifically, the counsel stated that the provocation involved a comment suggesting that Bharti's married sister should marry another individual, Chandrasekhar Azad, prompting his client's response.

This case provides a current example of a Delhi court's approach to anticipatory bail applications under the SC/ST Act, especially when combined with charges under the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The rejection of Ajeet Bharti's bail plea under the SC/ST Act underscores the stringent legal framework surrounding offenses against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, where anticipatory bail is often difficult to obtain. The inclusion of IT Act Section 67 Ajeet Bharti, which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form, further complicates the legal landscape.

The application of Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a new criminal code, adds another layer of legal scrutiny to the proceedings. Lawyers defending clients accused of hate speech or caste-based offenses should closely monitor the detailed order from ASJ Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler for insights into how courts evaluate 'grave provocation' defenses and the interplay of these statutes in bail proceedings. The outcome of this Ajeet Bharti bail plea SC/ST Act case will likely set precedents for similar matters in the future.

This case provides a current example of a Delhi court's approach to anticipatory bail applications under the SC/ST Act, especially when combined with charges under the IT Act and the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Lawyers defending clients accused of hate speech or caste-based offenses should closely monitor the detailed order for insights into how courts evaluate 'grave provocation' defenses and the interplay of these statutes in bail proceedings.

Source: Original reporting via Bar & Bench