The Delhi High Court on Thursday, 24 September 2026, denied anticipatory bail to YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in connection with an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against Nagina MP Chandra Shekhar Azad and members of the Scheduled Caste community. A single-judge Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee dismissed Bharti's plea, holding that an offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was prima facie established against him.

What the Court Held

Justice Banerjee held that offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act were prima facie made out, thereby attracting the statutory bar on pre-arrest bail under Section 18 of the Act. The petition was consequently held not maintainable and dismissed. The case is also registered under the Information Technology Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Background: The FIR and Trial Court Order

Bharti had initially moved the Patiala House Courts seeking anticipatory bail against FIR No. 30/2026 registered at North Avenue Police Station. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler dismissed that plea on 7 September, also invoking the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. The trial court observed that the material prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r) — which concerns intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent to humiliate.

The trial court further noted that the alleged remarks contained an express and repeated invocation of caste names, references to caste hierarchy and marriageability, and were published on a publicly accessible social media platform that had garnered more than 23,000 views. It recorded that the requirement of the remarks being made within public view could not be treated as plainly absent at the pre-arrest stage.

Arguments Before the High Court

Bharti's counsel, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, argued that the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not met because the alleged remarks were not made with the intention to insult Azad on account of his caste identity. Dehadrai contended that the remarks arose in the context of alleged comments made about Bharti's sister on social media and that his client had not targeted Azad because of caste. He further submitted that an abusive statement alone would not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless the statutory requirement of caste-based intent was satisfied.

Delhi Police and the complainant opposed the plea, submitting that the alleged remarks were directed against a particular caste, made publicly on social media, and accessed by approximately 23,000 people — thereby satisfying the requirement of being made in a place within public view.

Observations During Hearing

During an earlier hearing on 16 September, Justice Banerjee had remarked that Bharti ought to have been 'circumspect' while making the alleged comments and questioned Delhi Police on why no notice had been issued to him. The court had asked: 'You don't require custodial interrogation?' Delhi Police submitted that the investigating officer had obtained Bharti's address only two days prior and was therefore unable to issue a notice earlier. Justice Banerjee also objected to the manner in which a transcript containing the alleged remarks was placed on record and warned Bharti's counsel of possible contempt proceedings over it.

What Comes Next

With the Delhi High Court's dismissal, Bharti faces immediate exposure to arrest. The detailed order of the High Court is still awaited. The case will now likely proceed before the trial court, with the possibility of Bharti approaching the Supreme Court for relief. This ruling reinforces judicial interpretation that the statutory bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is a high threshold at the pre-arrest stage — particularly when social media content with wide reach is involved.