New Delhi [India], September 24 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber and social media influencer Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, over his alleged remarks concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out against Bharti and noted that there was a statutory bar on granting anticipatory bail in such circumstances.
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act relates to intentionally insulting or intimidating a member of an SC/ST community with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view, while Section 3(1)(s) concerns abusing a member of an SC/ST community by caste name.
The High Court’s observations came while considering Bharti’s plea seeking pre-arrest bail in the case registered against him at North Avenue Police Station.
The court, while examining the allegations and material placed before it, found that the ingredients of the offences under the two provisions were prima facie attracted, thereby attracting the statutory restriction on anticipatory bail.
Bharti had approached the High Court after a Patiala House Court on September 7 rejected his anticipatory bail plea. The trial court had also found that the material before it prima facie disclosed an offence under the SC/ST Act and held that the statutory bar applied.
The FIR was registered on August 23 on a complaint by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), concerning a video uploaded on Bharti’s social media account.
According to the complaint, Bharti allegedly made caste-related and abusive remarks concerning Chandrashekhar Azad and BR Ambedkar, besides making other allegedly objectionable statements.
Bharti has disputed the allegations. During the proceedings, his counsel argued that the ingredients of the offences under the SC/ST Act were not satisfied and that the alleged remarks should be considered in their complete context.
The defence also submitted that Bharti was opposed to caste discrimination and had expressed views on reservation. It was argued that the alleged remarks had been made in the context of statements purportedly made against his mother and sister. (ANI)
Related reading
