Delhi High Court’s Decision on Anticipatory Bail
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti concerning charges under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The case pertains to Bharti’s comments about Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan. Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the matter, ruling that offenses under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act appear to be prima facie established against Bharti, effectively barring the possibility of granting anticipatory bail.
Understanding the Legal Charges
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act addresses intentional insults or intimidation aimed at humiliating members of the SC/ST community, while Section 3(1)(s) pertains to using caste-based abuse. The Court determined that Bharti’s petition was not maintainable, resulting in its dismissal. A comprehensive order detailing the decision is anticipated soon.
Background of the Case
Bharti had contested the trial court’s decision dated September 7, which declined anticipatory bail. An FIR was lodged against him on August 23 at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station. The charges include violations under the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complaint, filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), centers on a video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti,” which Bharti published on his social media platform.
Allegations and Defense
The complaint alleges that Bharti used derogatory language, making objectionable comments against Dalit leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Furthermore, he is accused of using sexually degrading language concerning women and issuing threats. In his defense, Bharti claimed his remarks were a response to derogatory comments about his family made on his video. Bharti argued that his intention was not to target Azad based on caste but to respond to personal insults.
Court Proceedings and Arguments
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, representing Bharti, argued that the SC/ST Act’s provisions did not apply to the case. Dehadrai contended that Bharti expressed a nuanced perspective on reservation and was provoked by comments directed at his sister. “I have not even mentioned Mr. Azad’s caste,” Bharti stated in his defense.
The Delhi Police, opposing the bail application, asserted that Bharti’s statements clearly insulted a particular caste. The complainant’s counsel argued that Bharti deliberately targeted a specific caste and, given the prima facie case against him, should not be granted anticipatory bail. The counsel also mentioned that Bharti is a “habitual offender,” citing his previous controversial remarks about a former Chief Justice of India.
