Delhi Court: Ajeet Bharti Denied Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act

• A Delhi Additional Sessions Judge dismissed YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail application.
• The court found his "on-air remarks" about Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad's "marriageability" prima facie disclosed an offense under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
• This finding triggered the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the Act.
• The FIR, registered on August 23, 2026, at Police Station North Avenue, cited "on social media" as the place of occurrence.
• The order was passed by ASJ Saurabh Partap Singh Laler on September 7 in the case State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti.

This decision reinforces the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, particularly when remarks made on social media are deemed to prima facie disclose an offense.

An Additional Sessions Judge in Delhi recently dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti. The court determined that Bharti's "on-air remarks" concerning the "marriageability" of Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad prima facie revealed the elements of an offense under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This finding directly activated the statutory prohibition on pre-arrest bail as stipulated by Section 18 of the Act.

The order, issued by ASJ Saurabh Partap Singh Laler on September 7, stemmed from Bail Application No. 2114 of 2026. This application was connected to FIR No. 0030/2026, which had been registered on August 23, 2026, at Police Station North Avenue. The case is officially titled State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti.

The First Information Report (FIR) was initiated based on a written complaint submitted by the Delhi State President of a recognized political organization. Notably, the complainant was not physically present at any actual incident related to the remarks. Instead, the FIR explicitly recorded the "place of occurrence" as "on social media," highlighting the digital nature of the alleged offense.

The dismissal of Ajeet Bharti's anticipatory bail application underscores the stringent provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This landmark legislation was enacted to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to provide for special courts for the trial of such offenses. A critical aspect of the Act is Section 18, which imposes a statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail to individuals accused of offenses under its purview.

This specific legal provision means that once a court finds a prima facie case indicating an offense under the SC/ST Act, the accused generally cannot seek pre-arrest bail. The intent behind Section 18 is to ensure that individuals accused of such serious offenses face the regular process of arrest and investigation, thereby deterring atrocities and ensuring justice for victims. The court's decision in State of Delhi v. Ajeet Bharti directly applied this principle, concluding that the YouTuber's remarks met the initial threshold for an offense.

This ruling carries significant implications, particularly for public discourse and content creation in the digital age, especially concerning social media remarks under the SC/ST Act in India. The court's explicit recording of "on social media" as the place of occurrence for the alleged offense highlights that remarks made online are subject to the same legal scrutiny as those made in physical spaces. This reinforces the principle that digital platforms do not offer immunity from legal accountability, especially when dealing with sensitive issues like caste-based discrimination.

The case serves as a crucial reminder of the severe consequences that can arise from public statements, particularly those targeting individuals based on their caste identity. For lawyers, it emphasizes the critical need to advise clients on the limited avenues for pre-arrest relief when facing allegations under the SC/ST Act, especially when a prima facie case has been established. This decision reinforces the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, particularly when remarks made on social media are deemed to prima facie disclose an offense. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the protective measures embedded within the Act, ensuring that its provisions are applied rigorously to safeguard vulnerable communities.

This ruling reinforces the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, particularly when remarks made on social media are deemed to prima facie disclose an offense. Lawyers must advise clients on the severe implications of such allegations and the limited avenues for pre-arrest relief.

Source: Reporting based on Delhi Courts Weekly Round Up.