Delhi HC Denies Anticipatory Bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant anticipatory bail to YouTuber and social-media commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case concerning alleged caste-based, derogatory and humiliating remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, holding that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was made out against him.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed Bharti’s pre-arrest bail plea, observing that the alleged remarks contained repeated references to caste and an explicit invocation of ideas of caste superiority. The court held that the allegations prima facie attracted Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, concerning intentional insult or intimidation and abuse by caste name in a place within public view. Since a prima facie case was made out, the court held that the statutory restrictions under Sections 18 and 18A(2) barred anticipatory bail.

The case stems from a video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti”, uploaded by Bharti on August 22, 2026, amid a controversy over reservation. According to the complaint, the video had around 23,100 views when the FIR was registered on August 23 at North Avenue Police Station, Delhi. The complaint alleged caste-based and abusive remarks against Azad, Scheduled Caste members and Dr B.R. Ambedkar. The FIR invoked the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Bharti’s counsel argued that the remarks followed an online exchange and alleged provocation involving his family, maintaining that the comments were not intended to target Azad because of his caste. The Delhi Police and complainant’s side opposed bail, arguing that the alleged words directly insulted a particular caste and were intentional.

The High Court rejected the provocation defence, noting that Bharti was aware of Azad’s identity and circumstances and had not subsequently issued any clarification, retraction or apology. It also examined the alleged remarks in chambers and held that their publication on a public digital platform could satisfy the “ public view ” requirement.

Bharti’s anticipatory-bail plea had earlier been rejected by the trial court on September 7. The High Court reserved its order on September 16 before dismissing the plea.

The court stressed that its findings were prima facie and confined to the bail stage, and therefore did not amount to a final determination of guilt. The case now proceeds through investigation and further criminal proceedings.