Delhi High Court Rejects Ajeet Bharti’s Anticipatory Bail Plea in SC/ST Act Case
YouTuber Ajeet Bharti was denied anticipatory bail by the Delhi High Court on Thursday in a case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) registered against him for his remarks against Member of Parliament (MP) Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee stated that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the ST/ST Act was prima facie made out against Bharti and therefore there was a statutory bar in granting him anticipatory bail.
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act pertains to intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of the SC/ST community. Section 3(1)(s) pertains to an act which abuses any member of the SC/ST community by calling him by his caste name.
The Delhi HC added that the petition was not maintainable and thus is being dismissed.
The detailed order will be released later.
FIR Against Ajeet Bharti
A first information report (FIR) was lodged against Bharti at the North Avenue Police Station in Delhi on August 23 under various sections of the SC/ST Act. He was also booked under Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The FIR was lodged based on a complaint filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram). Bauddh had filed the complaint against Bharti for his video titled SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti which was published on the YouTuber’s social media handle.
According to the complainant, Bharti used caste-based and abusive language against people and made objectionable remarks against Dalit leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan and Dr. BR Ambedkar in the video. He also used sexually degrading language against women and threatened many.
Publicly, Bharti has defended his remarks and claimed that he was provoked by an individual calling his mother/sister caste-wise in his video.
Submissions on Behalf of Bharti
Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing for Bharti today, submitted that his client was against caste-based discrimination.
He further argued that the provisions of SC/ST Act were not made out against Bharti in the case. He further submitted that the YouTuber has gone on record expressing his nuanced view on the topic of reservation.
Dehadrai continued stating that Bharti did not target Chandrashekhar Azad because he belongs to a particular caste. He targeted him because he was provoked by the remarks made against his sister.
“My sister was abused on his (Bharti’s) social media feed, I retaliated to that. Some people might not like it, but my intention was not to malign anybody... when somebody abuses my sister or mother I react. I have not even named Mr Azad’s caste. The sine qua non is that,” Bharti said.
Delhi Police Opposes Bail Plea
The Counsel for Delhi Police opposed the bail plea. He informed the Court that it is evident from the statement of facts that Bharti insulted a particular caste when he made the aforementioned statements.
“All these words have been said on social media. Third thing is that he doesn’t belong to the same caste. These three things are there to attract the SC/ST Act,” she added.
Submissions on Behalf of Complainant
Advocate appearing for the complainant informed the Court that Bharti knowingly insulted a particular caste. Additionally, he said that Bharti cannot be granted anticipatory bail because the Court has found a prima facie case against him.
He further submitted that Bharti was a habitual offender. Bharti has previously made derogatory comments against a former Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Please Wait while comments are loading...
