YouTuber and commentator Ajeet Bharti has approached the Delhi High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered against him under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, following the rejection of his bail plea by a trial court earlier this week.
Bharti has challenged the September 7 order passed by Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler of the Patiala House Courts, by which his application for pre-arrest protection was dismissed. His plea before the High Court is expected to come up for consideration next week.
The criminal case arises from remarks allegedly made by Bharti in a video uploaded on his social media platform. The FIR was registered on August 23 at Delhi’s North Avenue Police Station on the basis of a complaint lodged by Balakram Bauddh, Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).
Besides provisions of the SC/ST Act, the FIR invokes Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 196(1)(c) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The complaint relates to a video titled “SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More | Saptahik Bakaiti”, in which Bharti allegedly made caste-related and abusive remarks concerning Azad Samaj Party leader and MP Chandrashekhar Azad, popularly known as ‘Ravan’, besides making remarks concerning Dr BR Ambedkar. The complaint also alleges that objectionable references were made to women and that threats were issued.
Bharti, however, has publicly sought to justify his remarks, contending that they were made in response to derogatory comments allegedly directed at his mother and sister in relation to his video.
While rejecting his anticipatory bail plea, the trial court examined the alleged remarks in the context of caste hierarchy and social stratification. The court prima facie found that the language attributed to Bharti invoked notions of caste-based purity, hierarchy and purported superiority of upper castes over lower castes, particularly in matters concerning marriage and lineage.
The court particularly took exception to an alleged assertion concerning Chandrashekhar Azad’s suitability to marry an upper-caste woman, observing that such a reference constituted a specific and humiliating invocation of caste identity.
The trial court’s findings assume significance in the context of the statutory bar on anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, and Bharti’s petition before the High Court will now place the question of pre-arrest protection before the higher judicial forum.
The Delhi High Court’s consideration of the matter is therefore likely to turn on the nature of the allegations, the applicability of the statutory restrictions governing anticipatory bail under the SC/ST Act, and whether the material on record discloses the ingredients of the offences alleged against Bharti.
The matter is expected to be listed before the Delhi High Court next week.
The post Ajeet Bharti moves Delhi High Court against rejection of anticipatory bail in SC/ST Act case appeared first on India Legal.