Delhi Court: Ajeet Bharti Seeks Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Case

• YouTuber Ajeet Bharti has sought anticipatory bail from Delhi's Patiala House Court in a case registered under the SC/ST Act.
• His lawyers argued that no offense under the SC/ST Act was made out and that police had not issued a Section 35(3) BNSS notice.
• Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler directed that any police notice issued to Bharti must be placed before the Court for examination.
• The Court will assess the notice's issuance date and the prima facie satisfaction regarding the SC/ST Act offense ingredients.
• The Investigating Officer has been summoned, notice issued to the police, and the case is listed for further arguments on August 31.

The Court emphasized the necessity of scrutinizing the police's preliminary assessment of the alleged offense under the SC/ST Act before proceeding with the anticipatory bail application.

YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti has initiated legal proceedings in Delhi, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case filed against him under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The application was presented before Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler at Delhi's Patiala House Court, marking a significant development in the ongoing legal matter.

During the initial hearing, Bharti's legal representatives, Advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai and Pratyush Prasanna, contended that the facts of the case do not establish an offense under the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act. This forms the core of the defense's argument against the charges, aiming to prevent Bharti's arrest. The case stems from an FIR registered against him in North Delhi.

A key point of contention raised by Advocate Dehadrai centered on procedural compliance. He highlighted that the police had not yet served Bharti with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This particular section of the BNSS mandates that law enforcement officers must issue a written notice of appearance to an individual accused of an offense when an immediate arrest is not deemed necessary.

The absence of this notice formed a critical part of the argument for anticipatory bail, suggesting that the police had not followed the prescribed legal steps before potentially moving towards an arrest. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a robust piece of legislation designed to protect marginalized communities, and cases under it often carry significant legal implications, making procedural adherence particularly important.

Following a brief review of the arguments, the Court issued a specific directive concerning any future notice from the police. Additional Sessions Judge Laler stated that should the Investigating Officer (IO) issue a notice to Ajeet Bharti, a copy of this notice must be formally submitted to the Court's record. This instruction is crucial for the Court's subsequent examination of the matter.

The Court emphasized the necessity of scrutinizing the police's preliminary assessment of the alleged offense under the SC/ST Act before proceeding with the anticipatory bail application. This examination will specifically focus on the date the notice was issued and the 'prima facie satisfaction' of the Investigating Officer regarding whether the essential elements of an offense under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are met. This step is intended to ensure due diligence in the application of the law.

In light of the arguments and the procedural points raised, the Court has taken several actions. It has summoned the Investigating Officer to appear and has also issued a formal notice to the police department regarding the anticipatory bail plea filed by Ajeet Bharti. These steps are standard in such proceedings, allowing all parties to present their positions.

The matter is now scheduled for further arguments on August 31. This upcoming date will be critical for both the defense and the prosecution to present their cases more comprehensively, especially in light of the Court's specific directives regarding procedural compliance and the assessment of the alleged offense under the SC/ST Act.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench