A Delhi court on Monday dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by YouTuber Ajeet Bharti. He is currently facing criminal proceedings under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act following alleged caste-related statements made during one of his online broadcasts on YouTube.

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler, presiding at the Patiala House Courts complex, officially declined to grant pre-arrest protection to Bharti in connection with the registered complaint.

During the courtroom proceedings, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, appearing on behalf of Bharti, submitted that the status report filed by the police demonstrated that investigators were essentially focused on gathering electronic data. He requested the bench to evaluate the full background and situational context under which the remarks were delivered, insisting that his client harboured no intention to show prejudice or discriminate against any individual on caste grounds.

Advocate Dehadrai further contended that simply demonstrating that a complainant is a member of an SC/ST community does not automatically satisfy the ingredients required to establish an offence under the strict legal clauses invoked in the FIR. The defence stated that Bharti spoke only after facing severe provocation, asserting that deeply derogatory remarks had been aimed at his mother and sister.

The defence team maintained that Bharti did not utter any caste-specific slurs, nor did he display bias or hostility toward an entire community.

To support this position, Dehadrai placed specific transcripts of Bharti’s comments regarding Dr. B.R. Ambedkar before the bench. The counsel submitted that Bharti had referred to Babasaheb with the “greatest respect” and had cited his historical legacy specifically to argue against making insulting or derogatory statements targeting other groups.

The defence also addressed references concerning Bhim Army chief and Member of Parliament Chandra Shekhar Aazad, asking whether the complainant was attempting to place a contemporary political leader on equal footing with a historic figure like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Counsel argued that Bharti’s underlying point was straightforward: while every community has every right to celebrate its heritage and notable personalities, that cultural pride should never be used as a tool to belittle other segments of society.

“We are not demeaning others, My Lord. And nobody should demean others,” Dehadrai stated before the judge.

Continuing his arguments, Dehadrai highlighted another excerpt from the broadcast where Bharti acknowledged the contributions made by various sections of Indian society, including the Dalit community. The defence argued that these statements clearly showed an appreciation for all communities, proving that Bharti never claimed any group had failed to contribute to the nation.

Dehadrai emphasized once more that the statements were addressed directly toward a single individual during a heated dispute rather than targeted at any broader caste or demographic group.

“Nowhere have I used a caste slur or made a caste-based abuse against any community, My Lord,” the lawyer submitted on Bharti's behalf.

Revisiting the issue of provocation, the defence stated that the YouTuber was reacting to offensive comments about his family members and pleaded that the entire dialogue be understood within that exact setting.

“I was provoked. I said something in the context of the person whose name was taken. I have no other intention,” Dehadrai told the court.

On the other side of the aisle, the prosecution strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, arguing that the material on record showed a clear prima facie case against the accused. Counsel representing the complainant argued that Bharti’s remarks went well beyond an isolated, individual argument and constituted abusive commentary directed not just at the complainant personally, but at the wider community as a whole.

Bharti was booked after complaints emerged regarding casteist statements made during his YouTube show. The content creator has publicly denied these accusations, maintaining that his statements were never casteist and were merely a direct reaction to offensive remarks made against his mother or sister.

The First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged under various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, alongside Section 196(1)(c) and Section 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as relevant provisions under the Information Technology Act.

Section 196(1)(c) of the BNS deals with organizing, training for, or participating in activities that involve the use of criminal force or violence against any religious, racial, linguistic, regional group, caste, or community, where such conduct produces or is likely to produce fear, alarm, or insecurity among its members. A conviction under this specific legal provision can result in an imprisonment term of up to three years, a monetary fine, or both.

Following the court's decision to deny anticipatory bail, Bharti does not possess legal protection against arrest in this matter. However, the claims against him remain allegations at this stage of the investigation, and the refusal of pre-arrest bail does not constitute a legal determination of guilt.