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

• The Delhi High Court denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case under the SC/ST Act.
• Justice Saurabh Banerjee found a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, triggering a statutory bar on anticipatory bail.
• The charges stem from comments Bharti allegedly made regarding MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan in a social media video.
• The FIR, filed on August 23, also includes charges under the IT Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
• The court dismissed Bharti's petition as non-maintainable, upholding an earlier trial court decision.

This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, particularly when prima facie evidence of intentional insult or humiliation is present.

The Delhi High Court recently rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who faces charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case stems from comments Bharti allegedly made concerning Member of Parliament (MP) Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the matter, concluded that a prima facie case was established against Bharti under specific provisions of the SC/ST Act, thereby triggering a statutory prohibition against granting pre-arrest bail.

Bharti's legal challenge sought to overturn a trial court's decision from September 7, which had similarly denied him anticipatory bail. The High Court ultimately found the petition to be non-maintainable, leading to its dismissal. A comprehensive written order detailing the court's reasoning is anticipated.

The initial First Information Report (FIR) against Bharti was lodged on August 23 at the North Avenue Police Station in Delhi. In addition to charges under the SC/ST Act, the FIR also includes Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The core of the allegations against Ajeet Bharti revolves around Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act. Section 3(1)(r) specifically addresses instances of intentional insult or intimidation aimed at humiliating members of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe communities. Complementing this, Section 3(1)(s) targets the act of abusing any individual from these communities by their caste name, thereby reinforcing protections against caste-based discrimination and derogatory remarks.

The complaint that initiated these proceedings was filed by Balakram Bauddh, who serves as the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). Bauddh's grievance centers on a video titled "SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti," which was published on Bharti's social media platform. The complainant asserts that the video contained caste-based and abusive language, along with objectifying remarks, directed at the protected community.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee's decision to deny anticipatory bail was rooted in the finding that the alleged offense under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act was prima facie evident. This determination is critical because the SC/ST Act incorporates a stringent statutory bar, which typically prevents courts from granting anticipatory bail in cases where there is initial evidence of an offense under the Act. This legal provision is designed to ensure that individuals accused of atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes face immediate legal scrutiny without the benefit of pre-arrest protection.

This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, particularly when prima facie evidence of intentional insult or humiliation is present. The court's dismissal of Bharti's petition as non-maintainable underscores the limited avenues available for pre-arrest bail in such cases. The outcome highlights the heightened legal risks associated with public statements or online content that could be construed as caste-based atrocities, emphasizing the need for extreme caution in public discourse.

This ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of the statutory bar against anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, particularly when prima facie evidence of intentional insult or humiliation is present. Lawyers advising clients on public statements or online content must be acutely aware of the heightened risk of immediate arrest and the limited avenues for pre-arrest bail in cases involving alleged caste-based atrocities.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench