Delhi High Court denies anticipatory bail in caste-abuse case against MP

It matters to citizens as it addresses the legal restrictions on granting anticipatory bail for offenses under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Who it concerns: Ajeet Bharti (Applicant), State of NCT of Delhi (Respondent), and MP Chandrashekhar Azad (Complainant/Named Individual).

What the document says

• The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No. 30/2026 dated 28.03.2026.
• The FIR was registered under Sections 3(2)(va)/3(1)(r)/3(1)(s)/3(1)(u)/3(1)(v)/3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act, Section 67 of the IT Act, and Sections 196(1)(c)/351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• The complaint alleged that on 22.08.2026, the applicant uploaded an audio-visual media titled ‘SB79: Reservation Hatao Andolan Nautanki & More/ Saptahik Bakaiti’ containing caste-based abuse and derogatory remarks directed at MP Chandrashekhar Azad and the SC/ST communities.
• The Court noted that Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the SC/ST Act bar the applicability of anticipatory bail provisions (formerly Section 438 CrPC, now Section 482 BNSS) in cases involving offenses under the Act.
• The Court cited Supreme Court precedents (Shajan Skaria vs. State of Kerala and Kiran vs. Rajkumar Jivraj Jain & Anr.) establishing that the bar on anticipatory bail applies when a prima facie case is made out based on the FIR's allegations.
• The Court observed that if the necessary ingredients of the offense under the SC/ST Act are not disclosed on a prima facie reading, the bar may not apply, but if they are borne out, the remedy of anticipatory bail becomes unavailable.

Also in the document

• The FIR alleged the video had approximately 23,100 views at the time of registration.
• The complainant is identified as the Delhi State President of the Azad Samaj Party.
• The judgment was reserved on September 16, 2026, and pronounced on September 24, 2026.
• The Court emphasized that the exclusion of anticipatory bail for SC/ST Act offenses is viewed in the context of prevailing social conditions and the risk of perpetrators intimidating victims.