The SC/ST Act carries a statutory bar on anticipatory bail. Applying that bar, the Delhi High Court has refused pre-arrest protection to commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case alleging casteist remarks, holding his plea not maintainable and an offence prima facie made out. The allegations are yet to be tested at trial, where Bharti is presumed innocent; a detailed order is awaited.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [Ajeet Bharti v. State].
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, pronouncing the verdict, held that an offence under the SC/ST Act was prima facie made out against Bharti, and dismissed the anticipatory bail plea as not maintainable, citing the statutory bar on the grant of anticipatory bail under the special enactment. A detailed order is awaited.
The case
Bharti had approached the High Court after a trial court rejected his anticipatory bail application in connection with an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks against members of the Scheduled Caste community, including a sitting Member of Parliament and Dr B.R. Ambedkar. The FIR was registered under provisions of the SC/ST Act, along with Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000, over remarks allegedly made in an episode of his self-titled programme uploaded on his verified social-media account. The content of the remarks is not reproduced here.
The submissions
Appearing for Bharti, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai had argued that the alleged remarks would not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act unless there was an intentional insult or humiliation on account of caste identity, and that the remarks had to be viewed in the context in which they were made, including comments allegedly made against Bharti’s sister on social media.
The Delhi Police opposed the plea, submitting that the alleged remarks were directly insulting to a particular caste and had been made on a social-media platform rather than in a private setting. Counsel for the complainant submitted that the remarks were derogatory and intentional, pointing to the large number of viewers said to have been online when the statements were made and to the repeated reference to caste. Earlier, the trial court had, while rejecting the plea, observed that the remarks prima facie disclosed an offence under Section 3(1)(r), taking the view that the reference to caste hierarchy in the context of marriage prima facie showed an intent to humiliate.
Why it matters
The refusal turns on a feature that distinguishes the SC/ST Act from ordinary criminal law: Section 18 of the Act ordinarily excludes the applicability of Section 438 of the CrPC, the provision for anticipatory bail, in respect of offences under the Act. The Supreme Court has held that where a prima facie case under the Act is made out, the bar operates and pre-arrest bail is not available; anticipatory bail may be considered only where, on a prima facie view, the complaint does not disclose an offence under the Act at all. The High Court’s conclusion that an offence was prima facie made out therefore brought the statutory bar into play and rendered the plea not maintainable.
The contest in such cases usually centres on that prima facie threshold. The defence, invoking the line of authority that an insult attracts Section 3(1)(r) only when it is on the ground of caste identity and not merely because the language is offensive, argued that the ingredient of caste-based intent was absent; the prosecution and complainant contended that the remarks, made publicly and referring repeatedly to caste, crossed that line. It is the acceptance, at this stage, of a prima facie case that determined the outcome on maintainability, not any final finding on whether the offence is ultimately proved.
Nothing has been finally decided on guilt. The denial of anticipatory bail is not a conviction; it means only that Bharti is not entitled to pre-arrest protection under a statute that bars it once a prima facie case is found, and the allegations remain to be tested through investigation and trial, where he is entitled to the presumption of innocence and to apply for regular bail in accordance with law. The detailed reasons will be known when the order is uploaded.
Case Title: Ajeet Bharti v. State
Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: September 24, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for the petitioner; counsel for the State (Delhi Police) and the complainant.
Status: Anticipatory bail plea dismissed as not maintainable in view of the statutory bar under the SC/ST Act, offence held prima facie made out. Allegations untested; presumption of innocence applies. Detailed order awaited.