YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti has moved a Delhi court seeking pre-arrest bail after an FIR was lodged against him for alleged caste-based remarks made in an online video. The case, registered under the stringent Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, places his plea against a significant legal barrier that generally prohibits anticipatory bail.
The anticipatory bail application was heard on August 25, 2026, by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler at the Patiala House Court, who has listed the matter for further arguments on August 31.
Ajeet Bharti anticipatory bail: Details of the FIR and allegations
This case is now a critical test of the application of hate speech laws to online content creators, particularly given the strict provisions of the SC/ST Act. The court’s handling of the matter touches on several Supreme Court and High Court rulings on anticipatory bail.
The First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station on August 23, 2026. The complaint was filed by Balakram Bauddh, the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), a political outfit headed by Chandrashekhar Azad.
The allegations center on a video Bharti published on his YouTube channel on August 22, titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti.” The complaint accuses Bharti of using caste-based, abusive, and sexually degrading language. It also alleges he made objectionable remarks concerning party chief Chandrashekhar Azad and the architect of the Indian constitution, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
In his public defense, Bharti has maintained that his comments were not casteist in nature. He claims he was responding to offensive and abusive comments made against his mother and sister that appeared in response to one of his videos.
Specific charges invoked in the case
The FIR is not limited to the SC/ST Act. It also includes charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act. Specifically, the police have invoked Section 67 of the IT Act, which deals with publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.
Additionally, Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the BNS have been applied. Section 196(1)(c) pertains to organizing or participating in activities that intend to use criminal force against a specific community, causing fear or alarm. Section 351(3) covers aggravated forms of criminal intimidation.
The high legal hurdle of the SC/ST prevention of atrocities act
Bharti’s quest for anticipatory bail faces a formidable obstacle in Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. This provision expressly bars courts from granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to any person accused of an offense under the Act. It reflects the legislative intent to treat such offenses with the utmost seriousness and prevent accused individuals from evading investigation.
However, the Supreme Court has carved out a narrow exception to this absolute bar. In the landmark case of *Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India (2020)*, the court clarified that the bar under Section 18 is not applicable if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case.
This means a court can grant anticipatory bail if, on the face of it, the allegations do not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act.
This precedent establishes the central question for the Delhi court: do the remarks made by Ajeet Bharti in his video prima facie fall within the definition of an offense under the SC/ST Act? The defense, led by advocates Jai Anant Dehadrai and Pratyush Prasanna, has argued that no such offense is made out.
An accused person’s ability to navigate the updated legal pathway explained by the courts is often dependent on this initial judicial scrutiny.
Key judicial precedents on SC/ST act and bail
The judiciary has grappled with the interpretation of Section 18 for decades. The Supreme Court has consistently tried to balance the protection of vulnerable communities with the rights of the accused. The following table highlights some of the most important rulings that will likely influence the proceedings in Bharti’s case.
| Case Name | Year | Key Finding or Principle |
|---|---|---|
| State of M.P. vs Ram Krishna Balothia | 1995 | Upheld the constitutional validity of Section 18, stating the bar on anticipatory bail is not violative of Article 21. |
| Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs State of Maharashtra | 2012 | Reiterated that a court must verify the FIR to see if a prima facie case is made out before applying the bar of Section 18. |
| Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India | 2020 | Clarified that anticipatory bail can be granted if the complaint does not prima facie constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. |
| Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala | 2025 | Granted anticipatory bail to a journalist, holding that the bar applies only when a prima facie offense is clearly made out from the FIR. |
| Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain | 2025 | Quashed an anticipatory bail, reinforcing that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage and must adhere to the prima facie test. |
Court directs police on notice of appearance
In a notable move during the August 25 hearing, Judge Laler issued a specific directive to the Delhi Police. The court ordered that if the police decide to issue a notice of appearance to Bharti under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), that notice must first be placed before the court for examination.
This procedural safeguard is significant. Section 35(3) of the BNSS requires police to issue a written notice of appearance when an immediate arrest is not deemed necessary for the investigation. By requiring the police to present this notice, the court ensures it can scrutinize the grounds and timing of any police action before making a final decision on the bail plea itself.
The judge will examine the date the notice is issued and the investigating officer’s prima facie satisfaction regarding the ingredients of the SC/ST Act offense. This step suggests a cautious and methodical approach, ensuring due process is followed while acknowledging the gravity of the charges.
A history of legal challenges and controversy
This is not Ajeet Bharti’s first encounter with legal scrutiny over his online commentary. The YouTuber, a former founding editor for OpIndia (Hindi), has built a brand around his political and social analysis, which often takes a critical and satirical tone. His work has frequently placed him at the center of controversy and led to multiple legal challenges.
In 2021, then-Attorney General K.K. Venugopal consented to the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Bharti for what were described as “vituperative” and “highly derogatory” comments against the Supreme Court. Another request for contempt proceedings was made in 2025 following his remarks related to an incident involving the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai.
He has also faced over a dozen FIRs in Punjab for allegedly “casteist” and “provocative” remarks. The current FIR comes just days after Bharti was a prominent speaker at the “Reservation Hatao Andolan” (Remove Reservation Movement) protest at Jantar Mantar on August 21, where he advocated for reforms to India’s reservation system.
Exploring grounds for anticipatory bail without surrender becomes a critical strategy for public figures facing multiple complaints across jurisdictions.
What is the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a stringent Indian law designed to prevent atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It includes provisions that make certain acts punishable and aims to provide protection and rehabilitation to victims.
Why is anticipatory bail usually barred under the SC/ST Act?
Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly bars courts from granting anticipatory bail to individuals accused of offenses under the Act. This provision reflects the legislative intent to treat crimes against SC/ST communities with utmost seriousness, ensuring that accused persons do not easily evade investigation or legal proceedings.
What is the “prima facie” exception to the anticipatory bail bar?
In the *Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India (2020)* case, the Supreme Court clarified a narrow exception. Anticipatory bail can be granted if the complaint, on its face (prima facie), does not constitute an offense under the SC/ST Act. This means if the allegations clearly do not meet the criteria for an SC/ST Act offense, courts can consider granting bail, despite the general bar.