Breaking
Border Compliance

Ajeet Bharti seeks anticipatory bail in SC/ST case

By Lydia Whitfield 2 min read
Ajeet Bharti seeks anticipatory bail in SC/ST case - anticipatory bail
Ajeet Bharti seeks anticipatory bail in SC/ST case

Ajeet Bharti has asked a Patiala House Court in Delhi for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under the SC/ST Act over a video he posted online.

Court ties bail decision to police notice

Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Pratap Singh Laler heard the plea, summoned the investigating officer and ordered that any notice of appearance issued by law enforcement be filed with the bench before the bail application is ruled on. The matter was set for arguments on August 31.

Legal backdrop of SC/ST Act bail provisions

Bharti’s counsel, Jai Anant Dehadrai and Pratyush Prasanna, argued that the facts do not satisfy the elements of an offence under the SC/ST Act. They also pointed out that the police have not yet served a Section 35(3) notice, a requirement that usually precedes arrest in cases carrying sentences under seven years.

The Section 35(3) rule reflects a Supreme Court principle that arrest should not be automatic. By not issuing the notice, the authorities have left the question of immediate detention unsettled, which the tribunal said matters for the bail request.

Related: Court Weighs Cell Phone Tracking Records

In response, the bench drafted a conditional order: if the investigating officer hands over a notice, the document will be entered into the record so the judge can examine the date of issuance and whether the complaint prima facie meets the statutory criteria of the SC/ST Act. That approach keeps the bail question open pending the police step.

The FIR, registered on August 23 at North Avenue Police Station, lists violations of the SC/ST Act along with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and two provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complainant, Balakram Bauddh, identified himself as the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram).

According to the complaint, Bharti used caste‑based slurs, made offensive remarks about party chief Chandrashekhar Azad and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, employed sexually degrading language toward women, and issued threats. No trial has yet taken place, and the allegations remain untested.

Lydia Whitfield

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *