Full Breakdown
Ajeet Bharti’s Anticipatory Bail Plea in Delhi High Court
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Hearing and Legal Claims
On September 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court heard YouTuber Ajeet Bharti’s petition for anticipatory bail in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The petition followed a trial-court denial on September 7, which found prima-facie material disclosing an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act, invoking the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Section 18. The High Court reserved its order pending review of the full video and FIR.
Background of the Complaint
The FIR was lodged at North Avenue Police Station on August 23 after a complaint that Bharti’s YouTube programme, uploaded on August 22, 2026 at 22:11 hrs, contained “casteist, derogatory and humiliating” remarks aimed at Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad and B. R. Ambedkar. The complaint was filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party.
Legal Positions
- Bharti’s counsel, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued the statements were a reaction to provocation concerning Bharti’s sister and that an isolated abusive remark does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act. He asked the court to consider the video in its entirety.
- Delhi Police maintained that the remarks insulted a particular caste, were made publicly on a social-media platform, and that Bharti does not belong to that caste, satisfying the three ingredients of the SC/ST Act.
- Azad’s counsel called the remarks “derogatory and intentional,” asserting they humiliate the Scheduled Caste community.
Data & Statistics
- The contested video had about 23,100 views by the complaint date.
- The FIR cites Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act; Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000; and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Official Statements & Responses
The judge questioned the police about the lack of any notice to Bharti, noting the investigating officer obtained Bharti’s address only two days after the video’s upload.
Criticism & Opposition
Both Delhi Police and Azad’s counsel opposed the bail plea, emphasizing that the alleged words directly insult a caste in a public forum, meeting the SC/ST Act criteria.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
A procedural gap emerged when the FIR copy presented to the court was incomplete, prompting the judge to request the full document from the State. The police explained the notice delay stemmed from the late acquisition of Bharti’s address, a point the judge highlighted without concluding its legal impact.
Verbatim Quotes
- “No notices sent to him? Why? You don’t require custodial interrogation or what?” — Justice Banerjee
- “One concern is that the impugned portion is a few lines but I am requesting that the Court hear the prior part as well,” — Jai Anant Dehadrai, advocate
- “Day after tomorrow [Wednesday], we will see,” — Justice Saurabh Banerjee
What’s Next
Justice Banerjee indicated the court will pass an order after reviewing the complete video in his chambers. The decision on Bharti’s anticipatory bail will follow that review, determining the applicability of the SC/ST Act to the contested statements.