New Delhi [India], September 9 : A Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of social media influencer and YouTuber Ajeet Bharti in a case concerning alleged caste-related remarks, observing that the ingredients of an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were prima facie disclosed from the material placed on record.
The court held that, in view of the prima facie case under the SC/ST Act, the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act applied and precluded the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
“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, and that the bar under Section 18 of the Act, 1989 accordingly precludes the grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant,” the court observed.
Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler of Patiala House Courts passed the order on September 7 while dismissing Bharti’s application for anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at North Avenue police station. 
The case arises from allegations concerning statements made during a programme on social media. According to the FIR, the alleged incident took place on social media through the applicant’s verified account on X and a programme published on YouTube.
The complainant alleged that certain statements made during the programme were casteist, derogatory and humiliating towards a member of the Scheduled Caste community.
Bharti had sought anticipatory bail, arguing that no offence under the SC/ST Act was made out from the allegations. It was submitted that the statements in question needed to be considered in their complete context and that the complainant was not personally present when the alleged remarks were made.
The applicant had also argued that custodial interrogation was not required as the material relied upon in the case was already available in the public domain and there was no question of its recovery or discovery.
The State and counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail application.
The court examined the FIR, the transcript and other material placed before it, along with the legal requirements for attracting Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
After considering the rival submissions and material on record, the court concluded that the ingredients of the alleged offence were prima facie disclosed and that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act was applicable.
The court accordingly dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
At the same time, the court clarified that the observations made in the order were confined to deciding the present bail application and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
It further clarified that the trial court would not be influenced by any observation made in the order.
The court also said that nothing contained in the order would prevent the applicant from renewing his prayer for relief or seeking any other remedy available under law if circumstances change.