Delhi Police Challenges YouTuber Ajeet Bharti's Bail Request Over Caste Remarks
Legal Battle Over Alleged Casteist Comments
New Delhi: On Wednesday, the Delhi Police opposed the anticipatory bail application of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti, who is facing allegations of making casteist remarks against Nagina MP Chandrashekhar Azad.
The police's legal representative argued that Bharti's statements were directly offensive to a specific caste. In contrast, Azad's attorney contended that the comments were not only derogatory but also made with intent.
Bharti's defense claimed that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCST Act) was not applicable, asserting that there was no deliberate insult or humiliation, and that the remarks should be interpreted within their context.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee indicated he would make a decision regarding Bharti's request after considering all arguments.
The prosecutor emphasized that Bharti's comments were made publicly on social media, fulfilling the criteria for the SCST Act, and argued against the bail plea.
The court inquired about the number of notices sent to Bharti for investigation purposes.
The prosecutor explained that no notices had been dispatched because the investigating officer had only recently obtained Bharti's address from social media.
Bharti's attorney argued that merely referencing caste does not constitute an offense unless it is accompanied by an intention to insult or demean someone based on their caste.
He clarified that Bharti's comments regarding Azad were part of a social media exchange and were not intended to target the MP due to his caste.
The defense maintained that Bharti did not use any casteist slurs and was responding to a serious provocation involving a family member.
Bharti sought intervention from the high court after a trial court denied him pre-arrest bail on September 7.
Azad, who leads the Bhim Army, has filed a complaint with the Delhi Police, alleging that Bharti made caste-based, abusive, and humiliating remarks against him, members of the SC community, and B.R. Ambedkar on social media.
The FIR was filed under the SCST Act, the Information Technology Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The trial court, in its decision to deny anticipatory bail, noted that the evidence presented indicated a prima facie case under the SCST Act, which prohibits granting pre-arrest bail.