Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail to Ajeet Bharti in SC/ST Act case

The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) case registered against him for his comments regarding Member of Parliament (MP) Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan..Justice Saurabh Banerjee said 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 that there was a statutory bar on granting anticipatory bail. Section 3(1)(r) deals with intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate members of the SC/ST community. Section 3(1)(s) relates to abusing any member of the SC/ST community by caste name. The Court added that the petition was not maintainable and therefore was being dismissed. A detailed order is awaited. .Bharti had challenged the trial court's order of September 7 that denied him the relief of anticipatory bail.A first information report (FIR) was registered against him at Delhi's North Avenue Police Station on August 23 under the SC/ST Act, along with Section 67 of the IT Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.The complaint was filed by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), over a video titled SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti published on Bharti's social media handle. As per the complaint, Bharti used caste-based and abusive language, made objectionable remarks against Dalit leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan and Dr. BR Ambedkar, used sexually degrading language about women and issued threats. However, Bharti has defended himself publicly, saying that his remarks were provoked by a degrading comment about his mother/sister on his video..Ajeet Bharti invoked caste notions of purity, hierarchy; prima facie attracts SC/ST Act offence: Delhi court.Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, representing Bharti today, submitted that Bharti is against caste discrimination.Dehadrai argued that provisions of the SC/ST Act were not made out in the case. He added that the YouTuber had expressed a nuanced view on the subject of reservation. He said that Bharti had not targeted Chandrashekhar Azad because of his caste identity. He was provoked by comments made against his sister."My sister was abused on social media feed, I responded to that. Some people may not like it, but my intention was not to malign...I have not even named Mr Azad's caste. The sine qua non is that," he said..Delhi Police counsel opposed the bail application. He told the Court that it was clear from the facts that Bharti had insulted a particular caste in his 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 said. The counsel representing the complainant said that Bharti had knowingly targeted a particular caste. He also said that since there is a prima facie case against Bharti, he cannot be granted anticipatory bail.The counsel added that Bharti is a "habitual offender" and had earlier adversely commented about a former Chief Justice of India (CJI).