The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order granting regular bail to a man accused of rape on a false promise of marriage, holding that the prosecutrix was entitled to be heard, and has sent the bail application back for a fresh decision within two weeks, without expressing a view on the merits.
The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to commentator Ajeet Bharti in a case under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holding the plea not maintainable in view of the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the special law, and that an offence was prima facie made out. The case arises from an FIR alleging casteist and derogatory remarks; the allegations are untested and Bharti is presumed innocent. A detailed order is awaited.
Arguing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai told the Delhi High Court that mere use of offensive language does not attract the SC/ST Act, that the insult must be intentional and tied to caste identity, and that the Section 18 bar does not apply where the ingredients are not prima facie made out, relying on the Supreme Court’s Shajan Skaria decision. The prosecution and complainant contested that reading. The order is reserved.
Reserving its order on Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, the Delhi High Court declined interim protection at this stage and issued notice, framing the question as whether the two portions of his remarks by themselves attract the Act. The hearing saw a sharp exchange after the Court told his counsel not to circulate the allegedly offensive material in open court. Nothing has been decided.
Hearing Ajeet Bharti’s anticipatory bail plea in an SC/ST Act case, Justice Saurabh Banerjee of the Delhi High Court observed that a person who calls himself a YouTube commentator must understand the platform, the context and the impact of what he says, that he cannot name a person in a manner crossing legal limits, and that where a statute like the SC/ST Act creates special protections one must be especially circumspect. The observations were made orally and are not a ruling.
Seeking anticipatory bail in an SC/ST Act case over remarks made in a YouTube broadcast concerning Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad, Ajeet Bharti told the Delhi High Court that he is a YouTube commentator who has consistently spoken against caste discrimination, and that the remarks complained of were made in a moment of provocation after an offensive post about his married sister, without any intention to insult any caste. The Court will view the video in chambers.
