Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Ajeet Bharti In SC/ST Act Case [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Ajeet Bharti in connection with an FIR registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, holding that a video uploaded by him prima facie disclosed the use of caste-based slurs directed at Member of Parliament Chandrashekhar Azad with intent to humiliate him, thereby attracting the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee was hearing an application filed under Section 482 BNSS by Ajeet Bharti seeking anticipatory bail in proceedings arising out of FIR under provisions of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 196(1)(c)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was registered on the complaint of the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party, alleging that the applicant had, on 22.08.2026, uploaded and circulated an audio-visual video which, by the time of registration of the FIR, had approximately 23,100 views, and which allegedly contained repeated caste-based abuse and derogatory remarks directed at Mr. Chandrashekhar Azad, Member of Parliament from Nagina, Uttar Pradesh, as well as against Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe communities at large.

Noting that Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act, being para materia to the erstwhile Section 438 CrPC, bar the grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Act, the Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, and Kiran v. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr., held that the bar would apply unless the FIR and supporting material, on a bare perusal without conducting a mini-trial, failed to prima facie disclose an offence under the Act.

Having viewed the relevant portions of the video in chambers and examined its transcript, and noting that learned counsel for the applicant had conceded that the applicant did not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and that the video, given its wide public reach, was an incident occurring within "public view", the Court found that the applicant had made repeated caste-based remarks directly and indirectly identifying Mr. Azad by his caste, including remarks invoking notions of caste hierarchy in the context of marriage.

The Court observed

“the present FIR clearly discloses that the applicant used/abused the named individual using caste-names/slurs, which were with a view to humiliate the named individual within the purview of Sections 3(1)(r)/3(1)(s) SC/ST Act.”

Rejecting the applicant's submission that the remarks were made only in response to online provocation, the Court held that such provocation, even if any, had not come from Mr. Azad himself, and that the applicant had issued no subsequent clarification, retraction or apology. 

Holding that a prima facie case under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act stood made out, and that the statutory bar under Sections 18/18A(2) of the Act was therefore squarely attracted, the Court found the application for anticipatory bail not maintainable and dismissed it, clarifying that its observations were confined to the present application and would have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Mr. Jai Anant Dehadrai, Mr. Pratyush Prasanna, Ms. Yashvi Aswani, Mr. Ram Pravesh Dubey and Mr. Rishabh Chauhan, Advocates.

For the State: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP with Mr. Ashish Priya, Ms. Kirti Gupta, Ms. Urmila Saluja and others.

For Respondent No.2: Mr. Mohan Shyam Arya, Mr. Abhishek Suman and others, Advocates.

Case Title: Ajeet Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr., Bail Appln. 3808/2026

[Read Judgment]