New Delhi [India], September 9 (ANI): Social media influencer and YouTuber Ajit Bharti has approached the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the SC/ST Act case registered against him over his comments concerning Chandrashekhar Azad Ravan, after a trial court denied him relief earlier this month.
Bharti has challenged the September 7 order of a Delhi trial court which dismissed his anticipatory bail application.
The trial court had declined Bharti’s plea after holding that the material placed on record prima facie disclosed the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
It had further held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act applied and, consequently, precluded the grant of anticipatory bail.
“For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are prima facie disclosed on the material on record,” the trial court had observed while dismissing the plea.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts had passed the order on September 7 in connection with an FIR registered at North Avenue police station. Ajit Bharti Bail Order.pdf
The case concerns statements allegedly made by Bharti during a programme aired on social media. The complainant had alleged that certain remarks made during the programme were casteist and derogatory towards members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Bharti had sought protection from arrest, contending that the allegations did not make out an offence under the SC/ST Act. It was argued on his behalf that the remarks had to be considered in their overall context and that custodial interrogation was not required as the material forming the basis of the case was already available in the public domain.
The State and the complainant had opposed his anticipatory bail application.
After examining the FIR, transcript and other material placed before it, the trial court concluded that a prima facie case under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act was made out and dismissed the application.
The court had, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the disposal of the anticipatory bail plea and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
It had also made clear that the trial court dealing with the matter would not be influenced by any observations made in the bail order and that Bharti would remain free to seek appropriate remedies available under law if circumstances changed. (ANI)
Related reading
