Prominent YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti has petitioned the Patiala House Court in Delhi for anticipatory bail following charges under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The hearing, presided over by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, saw arguments presented by Bharti’s legal representatives, Advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai and Pratyush Prasanna.
The defense contends that the accusations do not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act considering the specifics of the case. Advocate Dehadrai also highlighted the absence of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which obliges police to serve a written notice of appearance to individuals accused when immediate arrest is not necessary.
After a preliminary review, the Court directed that if such a notice is issued to Bharti by the police, it must be submitted for judicial assessment. “In the event such notice is issued by the Investigating Officer, a copy thereof shall be placed by IO on record of this Court, so that the Court may examine the date of issuance of the notice and the prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the offense under the SC/ST (POA) Act, to dispose of this application,” remarked the Court.
The Court has demanded the presence of the Investigating Officer (IO) and notified the police concerning the anticipatory bail plea. The proceedings are scheduled for detailed arguments on August 31.
The case against Bharti arose from an FIR dated August 23, lodged at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station. The FIR accuses Bharti under the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), filed the complaint citing a video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti,” which was shared on Bharti’s social media.
More Read
The complaint alleges that Bharti employed caste-based and offensive language, made disparaging remarks about Chandrashekhar Azad (‘Ravan’) and BR Ambedkar, used sexually derogatory language concerning women, and issued threats. Bharti has countered these allegations publicly, asserting that his comments were a response to derogatory remarks made about his family in the video.
